California Agriculture January–March 2019  |  Volume 73  Number 1

Research to Policy
How Cooperative Extension
shapes policy p11
Case studies:
Nutrition p19
Landscape irrigation p25
In-stream flows p33
Dairies and water quality p40

Prescribed fire p5

Monitoring water use p9

University of California | Peer-reviewed Research and News in Agricultural, Natural and Human Resources

It is the policy of the
University of California
(UC) and the UC Division
of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (UC ANR) not to
engage in discrimination
against or harassment of any
person in any of its programs
or activities (Complete
nondiscrimination policy
statement can be found
at http://ucanr.edu/sites/
anrstaff/files/187680.pdf )
Inquiries regarding
the University’s equal
employment opportunity
policies may be directed to:
Affirmative Action Contact
and Title IX Officer, University
of California, Agriculture
and Natural Resources, 2801
Second Street, Davis, CA
95618, (530) 750-1397. Email:
titleixdiscrimination@ucanr.
edu. Website: http://ucanr.
edu/sites/anrstaff/Diversity/
Affirmative_Action/.
Editor’s note: California
Agriculture is printed on
paper certified by the Forest
Stewardship Council® as
sourced from well-managed
forests, with 10% recycled
postconsumer waste and no
elemental chlorine. See www.
fsc.org for more information.
2 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
California Agriculture
Peer-reviewed research and news published by
University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources
Director of Publishing, Executive Editor: Jim Downing
Managing Editor: Deborah Thompson
Senior Editor: Hazel White
Senior Writer and Editor: Lucien Crowder  eScholarship, UC’s open-access repository. In the 2017
Art Director: Will Suckow
SPECIAL ISSUE EDITORS
Clare Gupta, Leslie Roche
ASSOCIATE EDITORS
Animal, Avian, Aquaculture & Veterinary Sciences:
John Angelos, Maurice Pitesky
Economics & Public Policy: Rachael Goodhue, Mark Lubell,
Kurt Schwabe
Food & Nutrition: Amy Block Joy, Lorrene Ritchie
Human & Community Development: Rob Bennaton,
Martin Smith
Land, Air & Water Sciences: Hoori Ajami, Khaled Bali, Yufang
Jin, Sanjai Parikh
Natural Resources: Ted Grantham, William C. Stewart
Pest Management: Kent Daane, Neil McRoberts,
James Stapleton
Plant Sciences and Agronomy: Kevin R. Day, Matthew Gilbert,
Stephen Kaffka, Rachael F. Long
ORDERS AND SUBSCRIPTIONS
2801 Second Street, Room 181A; Davis, CA 95618-7779
Phone: (530) 750-1223; Fax: (530) 756-1079; calag@ucanr.edu
EDITORIAL
2801 Second Street, Room 184; Davis, CA 95618-7779
(530) 750-1223; calag.ucanr.edu
California Agriculture (ISSN 0008-0845, print, linking; ISSN 2160-8091,
online) is published quarterly. Postmaster: Send change of address “Form
3579” to California Agriculture at the address above.
©2019 The Regents of the University of California
California Agriculture is a quarterly, open-access, peer-
reviewed research journal. It has been published continu-
ously since 1946 by University of California Agriculture
and Natural Resources (ANR). There are about 10,000 print
subscribers.
Mission and audience. California Agriculture pub-
lishes original research and news in a form accessible to
an educated but non-specialist audience. In the last read-
ership survey, 33% of subscribers worked in agriculture,
31% were university faculty or research scientists and 19%
worked in government.
Electronic version of record. In July 2011, the elec-
tronic journal (calag.ucanr.edu) became the version of
record. Since then, some research article are published
online only. All articles published since 1946 are freely
available in the online archive, calag.ucanr.edu/Archive/.
Indexing. The journal provides article metadata to
major indexing services, including Thomson (Web of Sci-
ence), AGRICOLA, the Directory of Open Access Journals
and EBSCO (Academic Search Complete), and has high
visibility on Google Scholar. All articles are posted to
Thomson JCR, the journal’s impact factor was 1.2.
Authors. Most authors (75%) are among the roughly
1,000 academics affiliated with ANR, including UC Co-
operative Extension specialists, advisors and academic
coordinators; and faculty in the following UC colleges: UC
Berkeley College of Natural Resources, UC Davis College of
Agriculture and Environmental Sciences, UC Davis School
of Veterinary Medicine, and UC Riverside College of Natu-
ral and Agricultural Sciences. Submissions are welcome
from researchers based at government agencies and at
other campuses and research institutes.
Article submission and review. Guidelines for au-
thors are here: calag.ucanr.edu/submitarticles/. The jour-
nal uses a double-blind peer-review process described at
calag.ucanr.edu/About/. Roughly 50% of all submissions
are rejected by the editors without peer review due to a
mismatch with the journal’s scope or clear weaknesses
in the research. Of the subset of submissions that enter
the peer-review process, roughly 60% are ultimately ac-
cepted. All accepted manuscripts are edited to ensure
readability for a non-specialist audience.
Letters. The editorial staff welcomes letters, com-
ments and suggestions. Please write to us at the address
below, providing your contact information.
Print subscriptions. These are free within the United
States and $24 per year abroad. Go to: calag.ucanr.edu/
subscribe/ or write or call.
Permissions. Material in California Agriculture, exclud-
ing photographs, is licensed under the Creative Com-
mons CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license. Please credit California
Agriculture, University of California, citing volume, number
and page numbers. Indicate ©[year] The Regents of the
University of California.
To request permission to reprint a photograph pub-
lished in California Agriculture, please complete the UC
ANR Permissions Request Form (http://ucanr.edu/survey/
survey.cfm?surveynumber=5147). In general, photos may
be reprinted for non-commercial purposes.
CONTENTS
JANUARY–MARCH 2019 • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

Special issue: Research to policy

News and opinion
EDITORIAL
4 Communication, engagement and
science-based policy
Megaro

NEWS
5 Prescribed fire gains momentum

Evett Kilmartin
Crowder
In recent decades, California has made sparing
use of fire as a land management tool. But
policy changes, partnerships and attitude shifts
are creating conditions for expanded use of
prescribed fire.
Research and review articles
9 Do it yourself: UCCE workshop eases 11 Cooperative Extension can better frame its value by
reporting of water diversions emphasizing policy relationships
Crowder
Gupta et al.
For ranchers and farmers in remote locations,
Cooperative Extension will be most relevant in policy circles if it embraces
monitoring water diversions can present
both its technical and relationship-based strengths.
special challenges — that a new course helps
overcome.
19 UC ANR research informs, influences and strengthens fruit and
vegetable programs and policies
10 Letter to the editor
Crawford et al.
UC Nutrition Policy Institute research has helped guide state and national
policies that improve child and family health.

25 UC ANR research and education influences landscape water

conservation and public policy
Hartin et al.
For more than 30 years, UC has tackled the obstacles that inhibit widespread
landscape water conservation, with new science, trainings and contributions
to state policy.

33 Stream flow modeling tools inform environmental water policy

COVER: Top, UCCE Advisor Lenya Quinn-
Davidson consults with a fire crew in
40 UC-industry-agency partnerships influence and help implement
preparation for a controlled burn near
Bridgeville, Humboldt County; middle,
UCCE Advisor Tracy Schohr collects a water
sample below the town of Paradise, which
was destroyed in the Camp Fire; bottom,
an Expanded Food and Nutrition Education
nutrition class in Fresno County. Photos:
Evett Kilmartin, Ryan Schohr, Elëna Zhukova.
in California
Grantham et al.
The models have been used to assess patterns of stream flow modification,
inform California’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy and highlight shortcomings
in the state’s water accounting.
dairy water quality policy
Meyer et al.
More than 94% of dairy producers were in compliance with new regulations
to protect water quality after a carefully staged, collaborative plan to support
the transition to new practices.
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  3
EDITORIAL
Communication, engagement and
science-based policy
Anne Megaro, Director of Government and Community Relations, UC Agriculture and Natural Resources
A
s a prospective graduate student, I applied to
an animal science Ph.D. program knowing that
I wasn’t going to pursue a career as a bench
researcher. This move was unconventional, but I had
a plan: I wanted the knowledge, experience and cred-
ibility of a doctoral degree so that I could help bridge
the communication gap between scientists and non-
scientists. To achieve this goal,
I would have to leave the labo-
ratory and learn how to com-
municate with the public in a
meaningful and effective way.
This desire led to a career
in the realm that is the focus of
this special issue of California
Agriculture: the research-to-
policy process — through which,
ideally, scientific expertise in-
forms the development of sound
policies that further the public
good.
As a congressional science
and technology policy fellow, a
Evett Kilmartin
consultant to the Agriculture
Committee in the California
State Senate, and now as the
Anne Megaro director of government and
community relations for UC Agriculture and Natural
Resources (UC ANR), I have experienced from mul-
tiple angles the lessons that Gupta, Campbell and
Cole-Weiss articulate in their stage-setting article for
this issue (page 11). That is, that the value that sci-
entists — and, in particular, Cooperative Extension
scientists — bring to the policymaking process is tied
to their ability to communicate science effectively
to many audiences and engage with a wide range of
stakeholder groups.
I’d argue that UC ANR, and indeed Cooperative
Extension nationally, is well positioned to expand this
research-to-policy role.
First is the issue of communication. Helping and
encouraging scientists to translate their work into
something accessible to the general public is crucial.
By accessible, I mean sharing science in a way that is
relatable and in which people can understand and ap-
ply to their own lives. Cooperative Extension academ-
ics already excel at this skill. Their work by its nature
involves delivering research into the hands and minds
4 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
of practitioners and the public so that it can be applied
immediately in the real world, in real time.
Cooperative Extension academics also tend to be
expert relationship-builders. Their success as extension
scientists is built on establishing trusted relationships
with community groups, farmers and land managers.
Those same skills can — and should — be applied to
developing relationships with policymakers and others
involved in the policymaking process.
This special issue — developed with guest editors
Clare Gupta and Leslie Roche, both UC Cooperative
Extension Specialists at UC Davis — emerged from
the work of the UC ANR Research to Policy Program
Team. This group has created a community of practice
and provided a forum for sharing policy work, bringing
together UC ANR academics and staff to learn from
colleagues how to overcome challenges and implement
best practices for policy engagement.
The articles in this special issue illustrate some of
the many ways in which UC ANR research and exten-
sion work continues to inform and develop evidence-
based policy in California. They document how good
science coupled with communication and engagement
have helped to expand the safe use of prescribed fire in
forests, limit the water quality impacts of dairy farms,
better manage our streams and rivers, improve nutri-
tion standards and policies, and increase the efficiency
of water use in urban landscapes.
As you read these articles, I invite you to think
about how you can be involved in public policy,
whether you are a researcher or member of the public.
How do you bridge the gap between scientists and
policymakers? What can you, as an individual, do to
engage in evidence-based policymaking? c
Anne Megaro is the Director of Government and Community
Relations for UC Agriculture and Natural Resources. She helps
bench and field researchers spread the good news of their work by
sharing their story with policymakers and community stakeholders.
She earned a Ph.D. in animal science from Cornell University and
was a 2010–2011 AAAS Science and Technology Policy Fellow in
the U.S. House of Representatives. Prior to her current role, she most
recently served as Consultant for the Senate Agriculture Committee
for the State of California.
NEWS

Prescribed fire gains momentum

In recent decades, California has made sparing use of fire as a land management tool. But policy
changes, partnerships and attitude shifts are creating conditions for expanded use of prescribed fire.

A
s Californians know too well, the 2018
wildfire season was historically severe. But
for prescribed fire — fire set deliberately
to achieve management objectives — 2018 was
historically important.
California’s fire management regime needed
change — a strong conviction to that effect had de-
veloped in state government by 2018. The previous
year’s fire season had been unusually fierce, with the
wine country fires rampaging in the north and the
Thomas Fire, the state’s largest-ever wildfire until
that time, raging in the south. Leaders throughout
state government recognized that climate change
was exacerbating the state’s perpetual wildfire prob-
lem — and would continue to do so. So it was that
advocates for prescribed fire found the Legislature
and former Gov. Jerry Brown broadly receptive to
policy proposals that might mitigate the wildfire
crisis. “Conversations were wide open,” says Nick
Goulette, former chair and current member of the
steering committee at the Northern California
Prescribed Fire Council. “Committees said
‘Anything is on the table. What do we need to do?’”

In September 2018,
the Humboldt County
Prescribed Burn
Association conducted a
burn at the McBride Ranch
near Cape Mendocino
in Humboldt County,
targeting about 350
acres of coyote brush
that had invaded coastal
rangelands.
Lenya Quinn-Davidson

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  5
 They did a lot. It started in May, when Gov. Brown
issued an executive order on forest health that,
among its many provisions, instructed the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (Cal Fire),
as well as the California Air Resources Board (CARB),
to increase opportunities for projects in prescribed
fire (Brown 2018). Then in September, the Legislature
passed and the governor signed four pieces of legisla-
tion related to fire and forest health. One law, Senate
Bill (SB) 901, provides Cal Fire $1 billion over five
years for forest heath and fire prevention activities —
including $35 million a year for prescribed fire and
other fuel reduction projects (the $1 billion in funding
is generated by California’s greenhouse gas cap-and-
trade program). The same law specifies that Cal Fire
and UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) will cooperate
to deliver technical assistance on wildfire resilience to
Jeffery Stackhouse, nonindustrial timberland owners. SB 1260 requires Cal
a Humboldt County Fire to cooperate on prescribed burns with public and
UCCE livestock and private landowners. It also instructs Cal Fire to create a
natural resource program for pre-certification of “burn bosses” — indi-
advisor, participates in
viduals who direct operations at prescribed fires — so
a restoration-focused
prescribed fire in that vetting of burn bosses needn’t be conducted for
deciduous oak woodlands each proposed burn. SB 1260 also, along with Assembly
on a ranch in eastern Bill 2091, aims to ease the way for prescribed burners to
Humboldt County. purchase private insurance.
Lenya Quinn-Davidson
6 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
In recent years, prescribed fire has played a very
modest role in California’s land management prac-
tices. It wasn’t always so. Native American tribes
conducted burns to manage resources long before
Europeans arrived in the Americas. As recently as the
1980s, Cal Fire burned 30,000 to 65,000 acres a year
(Quinn-Davidson 2018). In recent times, however, Cal
Fire has burned fewer than 10,000 acres a year, and
the acreage treated by all prescribed burners — Cal
Fire, nongovernmental organizations, tribes, private
landowners and so forth — has been inadequate to
slow the ongoing buildup of fuels across California’s
forests and rangelands. Now, however, change is afoot
— and the new laws and the executive order are only
part of the story. To be sure, important policy changes
now being implemented by Cal Fire are mandated
by 2018 governmental directives, but changes at the
agency also seem part of a cultural shift in attitudes
toward prescribed fire. This cultural shift — which
Lenya Quinn-Davidson, a Humboldt County UCCE
fire advisor, has watched develop over her years as a
prescribed fire practitioner — has itself been nurtured
through partnerships established among stakehold-
ers across the prescribed fire landscape. Today, pre-
scribed fire seems on course to play a larger role in
California’s land management regime and — ideally
— to reduce the risk that wildfire seasons such as the
last two become a permanent phenomenon.
Why to burn (and why not)
Prescribed fires can be conducted to achieve a variety
of management objectives. For example, they can re-
duce fuel loads in forests so that high-intensity fires
become less likely. Prescribed fire can establish diverse
ecosystems in which threatened species thrive. In other
contexts, they can help control invasive species. A re-
cent study involving researchers from UC Irvine and
UC Merced suggests that burning off water-hungry
vegetation in the Sierra Nevada could increase Califor-
nia’s water abundance (National Science Foundation
2018; Roche et al. 2018). Prescribed burns may also,
by reducing the overall severity of wildfires, decrease
the potential for erosion and sedimentation after fires.
Over time, because low-intensity fires produce much
less air pollution than do infernos feeding on dense ac-
cumulations of fuel, prescribed fire could even improve
average air quality (Long et al. 2017; Schweizer et al.
2017).
Prescribed fire, then, can be a powerful tool for
land management. But for a formidable set of reasons
described by Quinn-Davidson and Goulette, California
has made only modest use of prescribed fire in recent
years. According to the state’s Forest Carbon Plan — a
May 2018 document developed by state agencies that
partially underpinned Gov. Brown’s executive order —
only 17,500 acres of nonfederal land in California have
undergone “forest restoration and fuels treatment” in
the average recent year. Moreover, “forest restoration
and fuels treatment” includes not just prescribed fire
but mechanical thinning as well.
The greatest impediment to prescribed burning in
California is the climate — the state’s hot, dry sum-
mers and damp winters allow “burn windows” only
during brief periods at the beginning and end of each
fire season, and during intermittent periods over the
rest of the year (Quinn-Davidson and Varner 2011).
Even when conditions would seem to allow prescribed
burning, permits are required from Cal Fire during
fire season (typically, from May 1 through October 31)
and from air quality management districts at all times.
Cal Fire has often been skittish about issuing permits
because, according to Goulette, “they worry about li-
ability. What if they don’t put out [an escaped] fire you
started?” Permits from air quality management dis-
tricts, meanwhile, can be challenging to obtain because
of the state’s persistent air pollution problem — and
permits can be rescinded at the last hour if CARB de-
clares a “no burn” day. (In 11 of the state’s air basins,
local air districts issue permits for specific burns but
CARB decides whether burning is allowed at all. In the
remaining four basins, local air districts have authority
to declare their own “burn” and “no-burn” days.) The
state also suffers from a shortage of people trained in
conducting prescribed burns. The bottom line is that,
Lenya Quinn-Davidson
A dog protects drip torches
though California desperately needs to reduce fuel in the back of a truck.
loads across its forests, the state has lagged far behind With prescribed fire, land
other areas — Quinn-Davidson points to the Southeast managers can achieve
and the Great Plains — in its willingness to embrace objectives that range
prescribed fire. from reducing fuel loads
But things are changing fast — especially at Cal in forests to establishing
diverse ecosystems in
Fire, an agency that sits at or near the center of any which threatened species
prescribed fire discussion in the state. All prescribed can thrive.
fires on nonfederal land in California require a Cal Fire
permit during fire season. Advocates for any policy
change related to fire, Goulette says, must negotiate
with Cal Fire. That’s why prescribed fire supporters are
glad that — according to Craig Thomas, the recently
retired conservation director at Sierra Forest Legacy —
“Prescribed fire is back in the realm for Cal Fire. They
are regaining their burning skills.” By November of
last year, Ken Pimlott — the since-retired chief of Cal
Fire — was telling the national radio program “Science
Friday” that “Putting prescribed fire back out on the
landscape at a pace and scale to . . . actually make a dif-
ference is a high priority” (Science Friday 2018). Indeed,
in accordance with SB 901, Cal Fire is now establishing
10 year-round crews dedicated solely to prescribed fire
and fuels reduction.
Thomas is grateful for the new crews — but he’d
like to see more of them. “We need a robust Cal Fire
prescribed burn crew,” he says, “in every county with
significant vegetation.” Goulette, meanwhile, argues
that Cal Fire should institute what he calls an “objec-
tive permitting process” to make permit issuance more
predictable. Hugh Scanlon — Cal Fire’s former unit
chief for Humboldt and Del Norte counties — finds
Goulette’s permitting suggestion generally reasonable.
He cautions, however, that any statewide permitting
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  7
 Due to legislative action, an executive order and changes
in attitudes toward controlled burning, prescribed
fire seems set to play a larger role in California’s land
management practices.
process must be broad enough to account for the vari-
able conditions — climatic conditions especially — that
can exist across the state. Otherwise, a permit might be
denied in one part of the state because conditions are
wrong in a different part.
Burning together
The new laws, the executive order, the changes at cru-
cial agencies — all of it seems bound up with the recent
cultural shift that Quinn-Davidson discerns in Califor-
nia’s attitude toward prescribed fire. The cultural shift
in turn seems inseparable from partnerships estab-
lished over recent years among key players in fire policy
and practice. An example is the Northern California
Prescribed Fire Council — the first organization of its
kind in the West — which Quinn-Davidson cofounded
in 2009 and directs today. A key element of the coun-
cil’s work, Quinn-Davidson says, has been building
relationships among Northern California’s large users
of prescribed fire, including federal and state agencies,
tribes, nongovernmental organizations and so on. A
second key has been demonstrating to Cal Fire, among
others, that prescribed fire enjoys widespread support
in Northern California and in fact is already in use.
A more ground-level cooperative initiative is the
Humboldt County Prescribed Burn Association, a
group that Quinn-Davidson formed last year with
Jeffery Stackhouse, a Humboldt County UCCE live-
stock and natural resource advisor. Prescribed burn as-
sociations are collectives of property owners who pitch
in to burn one another’s land. Burns conducted under
this model produce all the land management benefits
usually associated with prescribed fire and also provide
burn training to nonprofessionals. In a state such as
Nebraska, Quinn-Davidson reports, one encounters
References
Brown EG. 2018. Executive order B-52-18. State of Califor-
nia Executive Department. www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/
uploads/2018/05/5.10.18-Forest-EO.pdf
Long JW, Tarnay LW, North MP. 2017. Aligning smoke management
with ecological and public health goals. J Forest 116(1):76–86.
https://academic.oup.com/jof/article/116/1/76/4746805
National Science Foundation. 2018. Billions of gallons of water
saved by thinning trees. News release 18-029. https://nsf.gov/news/
news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=245128
Quinn-Davidson L. 2018. Bringing fire back to California’s private
lands. UCCE Sonoma blog, UC Agriculture and Natural Re-
Lenya Quinn-Davidson
sources Division. https://ucanr.edu/blogs/blogcore/postdetail.
cfm?postnum=27800
Quinn-Davidson LN, Varner JM. 2011. Impediments to prescribed fire
across agency, landscape and manager: an example from northern
California. Int J Wildland Fire 21(3):210–8. www.publish.csiro.au/wf/
WF11017
8 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
nonprofessional but well-trained individuals who have
participated in as many as 200 burns through pre-
scribed burn associations. In California, such associa-
tions are new. But Quinn-Davidson and Stackhouse are
working to expand them — with help from a grant pro-
gram administered by UC ANR and originating with
the federal Renewable Resources Extension Act. Funds
from the grant program have helped Quinn-Davidson
and Stackhouse further their objectives with the pre-
scribed burn association in Humboldt County — and
also perform outreach efforts in other counties, where
they have conducted prescribed fire programs that in-
clude a daylong indoor workshop and a day of real, live
burning. This June, again with the help of money dis-
tributed through the grant program, the pair will host
a prescribed fire training session in Humboldt County
for UCCE advisors and specialists.
Another node of cooperation is known as the Fire
MOU Partnership. This initiative, according to its
underlying memorandum of understanding, focuses
on cooperation among entities “to increase the use of
fire to meet ecological and other management objec-
tives” (USDA 2015). The partnership includes a broad
range of organizations, from Cal Fire to the U.S. Forest
Service to the Nature Conservancy; since its 2015
inception, the partnership has grown from 12 to 36
members. Thomas was the primary drafter of the mem-
orandum of understanding, though the Forest Service,
Cal Fire and Scott Stephens — the widely known
UC Berkeley forestry expert — also provided input.
“What’s exciting,” Thomas says, “is that the air districts
are joining. Previously, the fire managers and the air
quality regulators weren’t as collaboratively engaged.”
Collaboration will need to flourish if California, so
often ahead of national trends but lagging other regions
in controlled burning, is to take full advantage of pre-
scribed fire’s benefits. “We always think we know best,”
Quinn-Davidson says of her state and its people — but
“we’re gaining some humility, which we need to do.
We’ve got a lot to lose.” c
—Lucien Crowder
Roche JW, Goulden ML, Bales RC. 2018. Estimating evapotranspira-
tion change due to forest treatment and fire at the basin scale in the
Sierra Nevada, California. Ecohydrology 11(7). https://onlinelibrary.
wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/eco.1978
Schweizer D, Cisneros R, Traina S, et al. 2017. Using national ambient
air quality standards for fine particulate matter to assess regional
wildland fire smoke and air quality management. J Environ Manage
201:345–56. www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28692834
Science Friday. 2018. Can California use more planned burns to
prevent catastrophic wildfires? www.sciencefriday.com/segments/
can-california-use-more-planned-burns-to-prevent-catastrophic-
wildfires/
[USDA] US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. 2015. Memo-
randum of understanding for the purpose of increasing the use of
fire to meet ecological and other management objectives. www.
sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Community/PrescribedFire/Fire-
MOUSigned.pdf
NEWS
Do it yourself: UCCE workshop eases reporting
of water diversions
For ranchers and farmers in remote locations, monitoring water diversions can present special
challenges — that a new course helps overcome.
I
n recent years, California has tightened rules for
reporting diversions of water for agriculture and
other uses. One key challenge has been establishing
workable standards for the collection of reliable data on
relatively small and remote diversions — such as those
for far-flung farms and ranches. Under new legislation,
a certification program run by UC Cooperative Exten-
sion (UCCE) is helping to solve that problem.
The State Water Resources Control Board views ac-
curate diversion reporting as a key element of sound
water management. “It’s incredibly important to moni-
tor how much water comes into and goes out of the
system,” says Kyle Ochenduszko, chief of water rights
enforcement at the water board. Diversion reports are
fed into a state database and support the orderly alloca-
tion of water resources by, for instance, enabling the
board’s Division of Water Rights to inform water users
when new requests to appropriate water might affect
their own supply.
Since 1966, the California Water Code has required
diverters of surface water, with certain exceptions, to
report their diversions to the water board. But in part
because the water board lacked fining authority for
many years, compliance was poor. In 2009, Senate Bill
8 gave the water board the authority to fine noncompli-
ant diverters an initial $1,000, plus $500 for each addi-
A diversion site in Modoc tional day of failing to report.
County. A 2017 piece of Even so, SB 8 did not stipulate precisely how di-
legislation allows water versions were to be monitored. Rather, it required
diverters who complete
diverters to measure their diversions using the “best
a course offered by UC
Cooperative Extension available technologies and best professional practices,”
to install their own unless they could demonstrate that such technologies
monitoring devices. and practices were not locally cost-effective. That is,
the requirement left wide latitude for interpretation.
So things remained until 2015 — when Senate Bill 88
became law. This piece of legislation, passed amid a
historically severe drought, directed the water board
to draw up emergency regulations regarding water
diversions. The regulations, once completed, required
diverters of at least 100 acre-feet of water per year to
hire an engineer or appropriately licensed contractor to
install all monitoring devices.
Now the requirements were clear. But the provision
mandating installation by an engineer or contractor
prompted an outcry from many smaller diverters, par-
ticularly those in remote areas of the state.
For most diverters near sizable towns — Redding,
say — complying with the regulations was manage-
able, with expenses limited to the cost of a monitoring
device and the services of an installer. But diverters in
remote parts of Modoc County, for example, were look-
ing at bigger bills, says Kirk Wilbur of the California
Cattlemen’s Association. For such diverters, compli-
ance might require importing an engineer or contrac-
tor from far away, which would entail significant travel
expenses. If a site lacked electricity, as many do, the
costs would pile higher (electricity can be necessary in
diversions that include a flow meter, or in data trans-
mission from areas without cell service).
So how to reconcile the interests of the state’s divert-
ers with those of the state? How best to balance the
public and the private good?
The answer, it turned out, was to empower diverters
to install their own monitoring devices — with UCCE
playing the empowering role. The idea originated with
the Shasta County Cattlemen’s Association. It gained
Glenn Nader
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  9
A weir at the UC ANR Sierra
Foothill Research and
Extension Center in Yuba
County. Once installation
of a monitoring device for
a weir is complete, water
diverters need only read a
staff gauge that shows the
height of the water spilling
over the weir’s crest — and
do a bit of math.
Larry Forero
LETTER
Re: Soil- and waterborne Phytophthora species linked to recent outbreaks in Northern California restoration sites by
Matteo M. Garbelotto, et al. (vol. 72, no. 4, October–December 2018)
WHAT DO YOU THINK?
The editorial staff of
California Agriculture
welcomes your
letters, comments and
suggestions. Please write
to us at: 2801 Second
Street, Room 184, Davis,
CA 95618, or calag@ucanr.
edu. Include your full
name and address. Letters
may be edited for space
and clarity.
10 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
the support of the statewide Cattlemen’s Association.
It took shape as proposed legislation in 2017 and was
shepherded through the Legislature by Assemblyman
Frank Bigelow (R-O’Neals). It breezed through both
chambers with no votes in opposition — not even in
committee. “All parties realized,” says Assemblyman
Bigelow, “that Assembly Bill 589 would cut compliance
costs and, as a result, increase compliance rates —
which benefited both the regulators and the regulated
community.”
Essentially, AB 589 allows water diverters to in-
stall their own monitoring devices if they successfully
complete a monitoring workshop offered by UCCE.
Further, it directed UCCE to develop the workshop in
coordination with the water board. Khaled Bali, an ir-
rigation water management specialist at the Kearney
Agricultural Research and Extension Center, took the
lead in drafting the coursework. “Then we met with the
[water] board and got feedback,” Bali says. “We made
changes until they said, ‘This looks good.’”
Attendees at the workshops, which last three and
a half hours, gain a solid foundation in the basic
principles of diversion monitoring. They learn how to
monitor flows passing through a ditch, over a weir or
through a pipe — or gathering in a pond. They learn
how to build or install measuring devices appropriate
for each type of diversion and how to calibrate those
devices to comply with the state’s accuracy require-
ments. They learn how to navigate the water board’s
rather detailed reporting system.
I am curious if any researcher has linked the inadver-
tent introduction of Phytophthora to restoration areas
to the current practice of using dead plant tissue (com-
post) as part of the growing media.
If the plant material is grown in a sterile highly
permeable mineral media, such as mined pumice,
Phytophthora organisms will not be promoted.
Organic media eventually, if not immediately,
promote Phytophthora when utilized as a growing
medium. As organic substrate particles continue to
decompose, the permeability of the medium decreases.
The decomposition also consumes oxygen creating
conditions perfect for Phytophthora.
In agriculture the hydroponic researchers realize
the importance of promoting adequate oxygen levels
in the rootzone. In floriculture the same concerns have
been addressed. They are aware that dead (or alive)
organic matter anywhere in the rootzone or irrigation
Equipment for monitoring flows through open
ditches might be limited to a tape measure, a timing
device and a floating object. Installing a monitoring
device for a diversion routed over a weir — a simple
dam with an edge or notch that allows overflow — re-
quires a bit more equipment. But once the installation
is complete, the diverter need only read a staff gauge
that shows the height of the water spilling over the
weir’s crest (and then do a bit of math). Diversions
flowing through pipes must be outfitted with flow me-
ters. Diversions feeding into a pond or reservoir can
be monitored by tracking the depth of the water with a
staff gauge, float or pressure transducer (provided that
the depth and surface area of the pond or reservoir are
known).
So far, UCCE has offered the course in about 15 lo-
cations, from Yreka to Bakersfield. According to Shasta
County UCCE County Director Larry Forero — who
teaches the $25 course along with Bali, Tehama County
UCCE Advisor Allan Fulton and UC Davis–based
UCCE Specialist Daniele Zaccaria — about 1,000
people had earned certificates of completion by early
October. Even farmers and ranchers who divert less
than 100 acre-feet per year are attending. “I’ve been
floored,” says Wilbur, “by the number of diverters who
have attended the course even though they aren’t re-
quired to — they want to better understand the regula-
tions and make sure they’re doing the right thing.” It
probably helps that the registration fee is a fraction of
the cost of importing a faraway engineer. c
—Lucien Crowder
system can result in oxygen levels that are too low for
ideal root health.
Horticulture has to follow suit.
Gary Matsuoka
Laguna Hills Nursery
Matteo Garbelotto, UC Cooperative Extension
specialist and adjunct professor at UC Berkeley,
responds:
We published a paper in California Agriculture in 2015
on the risks of using products that are in between true
compost (which is normally truly Phytophthora-free)
and mulch (see volume 69, issue 4; http://calag.ucanr.
edu/archive/?article=ca.v069n04p237). Also, we have
found that soil and mulch used for trail-making can be
chock full of Phytophthoras, and we are alerting stake-
holders about the risks of using these two media. Your
comments were right on.
RESEARCH ARTICLE

Cooperative Extension can better frame its

value by emphasizing policy relationships
Cooperative Extension will be most relevant in policy circles if it embraces both its technical and
relationship-based strengths.
by Clare Gupta, David Campbell and Alexandra Cole-Weiss

C
ooperative Extension (Extension) prides itself
on its technical expertise and its ability to dis-
seminate research-based information; this is
the basis of the story we often tell one another, as well
as our funding partners, to justify our contribution to
society (Peters et al. 2010; Peters and Franz 2012). Yet
long-term disinvestment in the Extension system, along
with public skepticism of science, threatens the sys-
tem’s ability to deliver the expertise and research-based
information that it promises. In 1990, over 475 academ-
ics — both specialists and advisors — served California
and its 58 counties through UC Cooperative Extension
(UCCE). Today, that figure is approximately 280, repre-
senting a decline of about 40%. In response, Extension
leaders have sought ways to more compellingly dem-
onstrate Extension’s public value (Franz 2011). Such ef-
forts often rely on a familiar narrative framework, one
that emphasizes the value of detached, objective science
— and the ability of such science to shape evidence-
based policy and practice. Against this backdrop, our
research addresses two pivotal questions: Does this
Online: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0040
Abstract
Based on research-to-policy narratives provided by UC Cooperative
Extension (UCCE) academics, we argue that current, effective
Cooperative Extension (Extension) practices support a broader, more
convincing account of Extension’s public value than its leaders often
articulate. This proposed account incorporates the familiar Extension
narrative in which technical expertise and objectivity are emphasized. It
also incorporates the insight, derived from our data, that Extension can
achieve its greatest relevance in policy circles when it weaves together
its ability to provide trustworthy technical knowledge with its capacity
to influence policy dialogue, debate and practice across multiple
settings and over the long term. In a policy world often marked by short-
term thinking and polarization, Extension’s ability to foster deliberative,
context-sensitive and future-oriented policymaking is a critical
contribution to society. Interview data reveals three approaches to
effective policy-oriented relationship building: community-government
partnership building; stakeholder-oriented experimental research; and
community empowerment. Understanding these approaches can help
reframe the story that we in the Extension system tell ourselves and the
public about the public value we create.

Thomas Getts, left,

UCCE advisor based in
Lassen County, at the UC
Davis Agronomy Field
Headquarters. Providing
trustworthy technical
advice is a key part of
Extension's mission,
but the organization
maximizes its public
value when it combines
technical knowledge
with relational work.
Evett Kilmartin

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  11
traditional narrative adequately convey Extension’s actual practices
and their resulting public value? And if not, what alternative narrative
can better frame our contributions to public policy and society?
To address these questions, we analyze data related to a competi-
tive grant program that the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural
Resources (UC ANR) initiated in 2011. The grant program aimed to
catalyze rigorous, timely research that was relevant to high-profile
issues of state policy — and thus to garner greater visibility and fund-
ing for UC ANR. In 2015 UC ANR contracted with us to evaluate
the grant program’s policy impacts. Our evaluation included docu-
ment review as well as 30 interviews with grant recipients and their
policy partners. The interviews were intended to elicit answers to
three research questions: (1) What was the nature of the Cooperative
Extension activities funded by the grant? (2) What tangible products
and policy outcomes resulted? (3) What approaches, mechanisms and
processes contributed to producing the observable policy impacts?
The data reveals practices that can form the basis for a fuller, more
convincing account of Extension’s public value than Extension often
offers on its own behalf. This broader narrative incorporates the fa-
miliar, narrow Extension narrative that emphasizes technical exper-
tise and objectivity but also extends well beyond it. Our data shows
that when Extension weaves together its ability to provide trustworthy
technical knowledge with its capacity to influence policy dialogue,
debate and practice across multiple settings and over the long term, it
can achieve its greatest public value. In a policy world often marked
by short-term thinking and polarization, Extension’s ability to foster
deliberative, context-sensitive and future-oriented policymaking is a
critical contribution to society. Our research, by examining successful
cases of Extension’s research-to-policy practice — and by analyzing
how such projects weave together technical and relationship-building
work — contributes evidence that can inform decisions about better
facilitating, supporting and promoting such work.
Literature review
Our research is informed by two primary literatures. The first litera-
ture, rooted in public policy studies and science and technology stud-
ies, describes relational dynamics in the research-to-policy process.
The second literature illuminates debates over the meaning and pur-
pose of Extension and raises questions about who we serve and how
we relate to the public.
Relationships, research, policy
Several studies in science and technology find that the utilization of
research in policy arenas depends on robust relationships and strate-
gic networking (Graffy 2008; Jasanoff 2009). Relational ties, embed-
ded in social networks, serve as channels through which research
is communicated, debated, utilized and developed (Morton 2015;
Nutley et al. 2007; Weiss 1979). The shared premise of these studies is
that research users engage actively and selectively with research, us-
ing and reusing it within specific contexts to create impact (Morton
2015). Influence on policymaking rarely results solely from presenting
objective scientific evidence. Instead, research becomes meaningful
when (1) its creators and users strategically deploy language, objects
and acts that establish greater validity for certain knowledge claims
than for others (Pearce et al. 2014); (2) it is attentive to local con-
texts, lay knowledge and political demands (Campbell and Feenstra
2005; Pearce et al. 2014); and (3) it is embedded in relationships and
12 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
interwoven with the priorities, cultures and contexts of organizations
and institutions (Best and Holmes 2010).
While effective knowledge transfer depends significantly on tim-
ing and context (Murdock et al. 2013), certain practices have been
shown to facilitate the research-to-policy process. For example, the
involvement of research users from the beginning of a research proj-
ect, along with the coproduction of knowledge during the project,
increases research utilization (Murdock et al. 2013; Patton and Blaine
2001). López Cerezo and González García (1996) argue that expert
knowledge by itself is not sufficient for exerting policy influence be-
cause this knowledge is constrained by social, political and economic
factors. They propose the idea of “negotiated expert knowledge,”
which uses public voices and deliberation to gain new perspectives
and incorporate useful information. This concept helps avoid the
expert versus layperson dichotomy and instead establishes a more
nuanced view of knowledge creation (Collins and Evans 2007). In
general, the literature suggests the need to rethink the relationship of
expertise to “situated knowledge,” defined as information — about
impacts, problems, contributory causes, unintended consequences
and so forth — that members of the public know because of their lived
experience (Epstein et al. 2014).
This literature emphasizes the idea that researchers are less de-
tached than, in traditional research-to-policy narratives, they ap-
pear to be. Indeed, the ideal of policy shaped by sound science often
confronts the reality that decision-making arenas are characterized
by multiple parties, contested values and power imbalances. Simply
understanding how researchers relate to government policymakers
is inadequate; instead, one must realize that both are part of a larger
knowledge-action system in which knowledge is coproduced by
multiple parties and in which researchers must navigate and shape
complex “knowledge governance” arrangements (Clark et al. 2016;
Muñoz-Erickson 2014).
Framing Extension’s engagement
The meaning of the land-grant ideal has always been contested. His-
torians of land-grant universities note a split between those who em-
phasize the development and dissemination of technical knowledge
and those who emphasize the public work of building common values,
social capital and active civic engagement (Peters et al. 2010; Putnam
2000). In their pure forms, these competing conceptions imply very
different Extension roles and practices. A conception emphasizing
technical knowledge implies that Extension will focus on providing
technical solutions to problems as researchers see them. A conception
emphasizing values, social capital and civic engagement implies that
Extension will help communities define and solve their own problems,
with assistance from university researchers. Supporters of the latter
approach use the dictum “researchers on tap, not on top” to differenti-
ate their preferred emphasis from the other camp’s technical empha-
sis — but previous research suggests that both views oversimplify a
complex reality. Cash (2001) views Extension as a “boundary orga-
nization” that nurtures trusting relationships and navigates tensions
between science, politics and policy. Extension professionals engage
with the public by coordinating public meetings or interacting with
advisory groups (Frederick 1998), by listening to public perspectives
to inform policy development (Morton 2002) and by working with
and through community coalitions to facilitate pooling of resources,
sharing of information and coordination of efforts (Smathers and
Lobb 2015). Extension agents Patton and Blaine (2001) distinguish
between Extension’s roles as content expert and process
expert — with the former focused on applied research
capacities and the latter on the ability to frame an issue
in public terms and facilitate public deliberation and
issue resolution. Often, Extension professionals find
themselves juggling their content and process roles —
that is, they insert science into public discussions that
they themselves have convened. Overall, the research
suggests that Extension can be particularly effective at
building well-functioning stakeholder and community
networks precisely because of its identity as a trusted
source of information and technical assistance.

Methods
In the competitive grant program we studied, grants
were awarded to proposals that demonstrated both
technical competence and the potential to impact high-
priority policy issues of immediate relevance to Cali-
fornia decision-makers. Because UC ANR contracted
with us to evaluate the program’s policy impacts, we
had access to program documents.
To select a sample of projects for in-depth analysis,

we reviewed all 52 projects that had gained funding
through the grant program’s competitive process dur-
ing the three initial funding cycles (2011 through 2013).
We read each project’s initial proposal, its yearly prog-
ress reports and, if available, its final report. We then
selected as case studies 11 projects that had been more
successful than the other funded projects in terms of
policy engagement. We used the following criteria to
guide our selections:
• Did the project influence the design of a policy?
• Did the project influence whether a policy was ad-
opted or not?
• Did the project influence how a policy was
implemented?
• Did the project reports indicate significant engage-
ment with policy-oriented audiences?
While the term “policy” has multiple meanings,
our focus was primarily on public policy as established
through governmental decision-making processes —
and secondarily on the policy or policies of industries
or organizations whose impact on issues of public im-
portance is significant.
Of the 11 projects we selected as case studies, seven
had been completed and four were ongoing. For each
project, we interviewed the principal investigator (PI),
co-PI or key collaborator; and one or more of these
individuals’ key policy partners. We conducted 30 in-
terviews between April and July 2015, with a minimum
of two interviews for each case study. Most interviews
were taped and transcribed; in a few cases, the inter-
viewer instead took detailed notes. The interview pro-
tocol included questions about the background of each
research project and its policy environment; the policy
Aziz Baameur
Participants in an urban
impacts of the project; unique or particularly successful agriculture project
features of the project; challenges encountered in link- analyzed for this research
ing research to policy; and lessons learned. Transcribed get their hands dirty at
WOW Farm in Richmond,
interviews and related notes were uploaded into NVivo
Contra Costa County. The
software for qualitative analysis and then content- project's policy outcomes
coded so recurring themes could be identified. included governmental
To generate findings, we conducted three rounds support for local urban
of qualitative coding. First, we coded directly for re- agriculture ordinances.
sponses to the questions asked; this allowed us to com-
pare respondent answers. Second, we coded for themes
that recurred across multiple interviews. (The thematic
coding scheme we created was derived from notes
taken during and immediately after each interview.
We refined these codes as we read the full transcripts
and performed multiple iterations of coding — in some
cases collapsing categories and in others adding more
specific subcodes for topics that occurred frequently or
seemed particularly relevant to our research goals and
questions.) Third, we performed a more interpretive
round of coding that identified underlying approaches
to research-to-policy work. This part of the analysis
used a comparative method akin to what Weick et al.
(2005, 409) term “sensemaking,” a process that “occurs
when a flow of organizational circumstances is turned
into words and salient categories.” In pursuing this
approach, we compared each case to each other case,
looking for categories that could be used to parsimoni-
ously describe underlying similarities in approach.
We worked with a graduate student researcher on
the first two rounds of coding. In these rounds, at least
two people read each interview transcript more than
once, after which all team members engaged in iterative

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  13

Elise Gornish, left, then a
UCCE specialist, inspects a
restored section of Stemple
Creek in Sonoma County. A
separate creek restoration
project analyzed for this
research focused on
carbon sequestration.
14 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
David Lewis
conversation at coding sessions until they reached final
agreement on applicable codes. The third, more inter-
pretive round of coding work was conducted by the au-
thors specifically for the analysis that we now present.
Various methods have been proposed for ensuring the
quality of qualitative research findings (Reynolds et al.
2011); the primary method we have used is peer valida-
tion. UCCE personnel, including those we interviewed,
have had the opportunity during multiple UCCE-
sponsored presentations and training events to review
and comment on our categorization scheme.
Results and analysis
The case study evidence suggests that Extension’s re-
search-to-policy work has particular public value when
it combines technical and relational activities — when
it provides a space for deliberative and reflective policy
conversations over time.
The research-to-policy approaches utilized by the
UCCE professionals in our sample fall into three broad
categories — which can be described as community-
government partnership building, stakeholder-oriented
experimental research, and community empowerment.
In the community-government partnership building
model, researchers work directly with both government
and other intermediary partners (such as nonprofits)
to serve as conveners of a policy dialogue, while also
providing their partners relevant research data. In the
stakeholder-oriented experimental research model,
researchers partner with a community entity to con-
duct experimental, proof-of-concept research, which
provides data to inform implementation of an existing
policy. In the community empowerment model, re-
searchers partner with a community group to provide
data that the group then uses on its own to engage with
decision-makers.
All 11 of our cases fit (to varying degrees) within
one or more of these three models. Table 1 summarizes
the case data, noting each project’s name; the research-
to-policy approach used; project outputs (tangible
products); delivery method; project outcomes (demon-
strated impact on policy); and the stage of the policy
process that the work impacted. The last category uses
a standard set of stages first codified by Jones (1984)
to distinguish among (1) how issues come to attention
and get on the policy agenda (agenda setting); (2) how
policy goals and intentions are developed and speci-
fied (formulation); (3) how these goals and intentions
become codified into laws, regulations or other for-
mal policy statements (legitimation); (4) how enacted
policies are then turned into working procedures and
processes and are supported by public resources to
create tangible impacts (implementation); and (5) how
those impacts, both intended and unintended, are as-
sessed by various stakeholders or objective observers
(evaluation). As the table makes clear, the 11 projects
collectively address all five stages of the policy process,
and many individual projects address multiple stages.
Below, we use case examples to characterize the three
broad research-to-policy approaches found in our data.
Partnering with intermediaries
In four projects, researchers used intermediary groups
such as nonprofits or government agencies to expand
the influence of their research. In all four, researchers
played dual roles as knowledge providers (focusing on
content) and dialogue facilitators (focusing on process).
For example, the Oak Woodlands project team ad-
dressed a Northern California group’s concerns that
policies governing timber harvesting privilege conifer
protection over oak conservation, despite the key eco-
system function played by oak woodlands. Researchers
responded by assessing, through primary data collec-
tion, levels of encroachment on oak woodlands — but
they also took leadership to promote stakeholder
dialogue on policy changes, such as amendments to
current policies. They sponsored field trips to oak
woodland sites for the Forest Practice Committee (part
of the California Board of Forestry and Fire Protec-
tion); presented research briefings; and later organized
a series of in-person meetings, workshops, monthly
conference calls and public tours in which stakeholders
considered legislative changes.
In a similar fashion, the Sierra Forest Restoration
project team used its research to create dialogue be-
tween the U.S. Forest Service and civil society groups
interested in environmental conservation. Working
with partners from nonprofit organizations over time
can seed policy relationships that Extension researchers
might not be able to foster on their own. In the words
of one researcher on the Sierra Forest Restoration team:
I’ve always thought of [Sierra Forest Legacy, a
large environmental nonprofit] as very, very en-
gaged. They read our papers even more carefully
sometimes than we do. They talk to us a lot. I’m
happy to talk [because] they have [a focus on] real
policy implications. They know Senator Feinstein
well. I’ve always thought that policy develop-
ment is working with these engaged publics . . .
that connection with individuals on a particular
forest, and in the region, too — that is huge. It’s
[rare that] a new research paper comes out and
it’s like, “Oh, this is going to change the way we
TABLE 1. Key features of 11 research-to-policy case examples

Project Approach(es) Project output Delivery method Policy outcome examples Policy process stage(s)
Urban Agriculture Community Urban Agriculture Urban agriculture advocates Governmental support Agenda setting;
empowerment web portal; deliver information from Urban for local urban agriculture legitimation;
Urban Agriculture Agriculture web portal to city- ordinances; adoption of implementation
policy brief; and county-level policymakers AB 551
implementation
guide for AB 551
(Urban Agriculture
Incentive Zones Act)
Putting Youth on the Community Putting Youth on the Organizers from East Oakland Project informs planning Agenda setting;
Map empowerment Map mapping tool Building Healthy Communities efforts around crime implementation
use mapping tool for youth prevention allocation from
mobilization around Prop. 47 Prop. 47 implementation
(converts nonviolent
offenses to misdemeanors)
Comanagement Community Information sheets Farmers use information Comanagement language Formulation;
of Food Safety and empowerment on comanagement; sheets in conversations with incorporated into the Food legitimation;
Ecosystem Services in online training food safety auditors to explain Safety Modernization Act implementation
Fresh Produce modules; videos and legitimate on-farm
on comanagement comanagement strategy
for food safety and
conservation
Shaping Healthy Stakeholder- Integrated school Formal presentations of results School wellness advisory Implementation;
Choices oriented wellness program (task forces, conferences); councils; Dept. of Public evaluation
experimental informal sharing of results Health rollout of Shaping
research through relationships within Healthy Choices program
education policy networks in other school districts
(pending)
Interpreting the Community Information sheets Partner with park staff on Policy of grazing on public Agenda setting;
Value of Working empowerment on benefits of signage to educate public lands is maintained implementation
Landscapes rangeland grazing about value of cattle grazing
in parks in parks
Disturbance and Community- Dataset on California Board of Forestry California Board of Forestry Agenda setting;
Vegetation Dynamics government disturbance and and Fire Protection uses and Fire Protection made formulation
in Northern California partnership vegetation dynamics dataset to campaign for rule aware of need to change
Oak Woodlands in Northern amendment to address conifer policy; data supports
California oak encroachment congressional change in
woodlands U.S. Forest Service rules
(pending)
Creek Carbon Stakeholder- Dataset on carbon Partnerships with local Conservation work included Agenda setting;
Restoration oriented sequestration government actors to use data in county climate plans; formulation;
experimental dynamics of creek to inform local climate plans path to develop state-level implementation
research; restoration and protocol for greenhouse gas
community- conservation mitigation (AB 32)
government
partnership
Informing Sierra Community- Dataset on historical Partnerships with U.S. Ongoing project (likely to Formulation;
Nevada Forest government forest conditions Forest Service; engagement impact development and implementation
Restoration partnership with nongovernmental implementation of U.S.
organizations Forest Service restoration
policy)
Asian Citrus Psyllid Community- Geospatial map of Engagement with Citrus Ongoing project (likely to Agenda setting
government disease prevalence; Research Board, California impact state prioritization
partnership economic analysis of Department of Food and of funding for disease
disease costs Agriculture and local task control)
forces
Soil Survey Decision Community SoilWeb app Engagement with USDA Ongoing project (likely to Implementation
Support Tools empowerment (decision support Natural Resources impact state zoning and
tool providing info Conservation Service (and conservation program
about soil qualities) possibly with growers, state implementation)
water boards and other state
agencies)
Groundwater Stakeholder- Ongoing project (to Ongoing project (TBD) Ongoing project (likely to Implementation
Banking oriented provide evidence impact implementation of
experimental of groundwater Sustainable Groundwater
research banking’s Management Act)
effectiveness)

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  15
 do everything.” It’s really about having a good relationship with
people and then using that to bring forward the new information.
To create reports that would be useful in policy discussions, re-
searchers with the Sierra Forest Restoration project went beyond the
common conclusion that “this merits further research” and deliber-
ately drew out the policy implications of their research. As a policy
partner in the U.S. Forest Service explained:
When they did the research, they could have just said “Here’s the
data, here’s what it shows.” But they took it one step further. They
said “Here are the impacts, the implications”; they brought it back
to what it means to us as public managers. Doing this draws a dis-
tinction between them and other researchers.
The project team focusing on citrus disease management also
played a convener role, bringing together growers and government
agencies to create evidence-based policies for containing the spread
of the Asian citrus psyllid, a highly destructive pest. The researchers,
to guide both industry and public policy responses, worked actively
to present findings at Citrus Research Board meetings, the California
Department of Food and Agriculture and relevant task forces.
The Creek Carbon Restoration project developed out of a local
collaborative, the Marin Carbon Project, which examined the role of
local agricultural lands in mitigating greenhouse gas emissions. The
Creek Carbon Restoration project used a research study of on-farm
carbon sequestration — which provided evidence that riparian resto-
ration along streams in farmland could enhance carbon sequestration
— to inform dialogue around state and local policy on climate change
and to bring together agricultural groups, elected officials and govern-
ment agencies. As the project’s PI noted:
The fact that this [project] came from and continues to support
a local partnership has been helpful. It is keeping us focused on
[applying research] and not getting lost in research that is not as
directly relevant on the ground. As a partnership, we could divide
tasks and prioritize something in one year, like research, and then
shift to some policy engagement the next year, moving resources to
capitalize on each other’s time and expertise. equip end users — primarily youth-serving organizations — with ex-
A key take-away from all four projects using the community-gov-
ernment partnership approach is the complementarity of Extension’s
content and process roles. Deploying solid research in combination
with convening and facilitating partnerships and policy dialogue is a
common theme in these research-to-policy success stories.
Real-world experiments
Three projects set out to understand the empirical basis for proposed
or recently adopted policies. In these proof-of-concept projects,
researchers worked with field-based partners to set up real-world
experiments. For example, researchers involved in the Groundwater
Banking project worked with alfalfa farmers to develop field trials in
which farmers could see for themselves the impact of experimental
flooding. These trials provided evidence that groundwater banking
shows good potential as an implementation mechanism for the Sus-
tainable Groundwater Management Act.
In another example, researchers involved in the Creek Carbon
Restoration project worked with farmers to evaluate the carbon
16 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
sequestration benefits of existing on-farm stream restoration practices
— and to show how those practices could fit into efforts to mitigate
greenhouse gas emissions, as mandated under AB 32, California’s leg-
islation to reduce such emissions. Data from this project has informed
county climate action plans in Marin County.
The Shaping Healthy Choices project, building on a loosely worded
school wellness policy mandated by the California Department of
Education, developed a multicomponent program that improved
schoolchildren’s diets and reduced obesity as measured by body mass
index. Researchers, partly by spending extensive time developing
school wellness committees, developed a program that teachers and
principals would “buy into” and that could be implemented effectively.
Strategic relationship building ultimately led to widespread recogni-
tion of the program’s success. The U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) and the California Department of Education subsequently
expressed interest in replicating the program.
The time spent building relationships was a critical component of
all three projects, as described by one researcher:
The first six months before the grant even started, we already
started working with growers — trying to reach out and engage
them and make them interested in the project. That phase of
building trust with people is really essential, and it needs time.
You can’t force that process.
This approach is time intensive. But it is often effective at influenc-
ing policy because, with the help of community partners, it uses real-
world settings to show how a proposed policy could be implemented
to produce desired outcomes.
Community empowerment
In five of the 11 cases, researchers partnered with community groups
to provide policy-relevant data, but then stepped back as the groups
used this data in policy advocacy. Interviewees noted that this process
required a certain degree of “letting go” and a willingness to approach
partners with an open mind about what data they might find useful.
For example, in the Putting Youth on the Map project, the goal was to
isting data, presented in a digestible format, that could inform policy
agendas. As a project team member explained:
What we were really interested in doing was providing tools to
people who are well positioned to be developing and driving policy
agendas. Our work was really around [creating] this framing and
scaffolding to support those kinds of discussions and activities.
The Urban Agriculture project pursued concerns about infor-
mation availability that had been raised in a community needs
assessment:
[People] didn’t know where to go find out about the policies, or
what the details were, or how they could access it. . . . [The infor-
mation is] not transparent, it’s not easy to find, it’s not easy to
understand. . . . If there are rules and regulations. . ., how do you
find out about [them]?
The researchers responded by providing a synthesis of rules, regu-
lations and literature articulating the benefits of urban agriculture.
Using this information, urban agriculture stakeholders
were able to make legible their on-the-ground practices
and to better advocate at the state legislature for poli-
cies friendly to urban agriculture.
The Soil Survey Decision Support project developed
the SoilWeb app tool, which brings together informa-
tion that land managers can use to influence decision-
making about land use. The tool has been used by the
USDA National Resources Conservation Service and
the U.S. Forest Service to influence agenda setting
and policy implementation in environmental resource
management arenas (e.g., determination of land values
and taxes, placement of conservation assistance pro-
grams and selection of reforestation techniques). The
app also supports implementation of the Williamson
Act, a California law that provides tax breaks to land-
owners who keep farmland in production if the land’s
soils meet certain productivity class ratings.
The Comanagement of Food Safety and Ecosystem
Services project addressed a key problem for farmers
who implement environmental conservation tech-
niques: that they are sometimes penalized later by
third-party auditors for violating federal food safety
codes. Relying on existing data, the team created
materials that growers could show auditors, includ-
ing a policy brief, short video presentations and indi-
vidual conservation resource sheets. The information
provided justification for farming practices such as
planting cover crops and hedgerows or maintaining
wetlands. In the words of the project’s PI, the informa-
tion helps auditors:
. . . recognize that what they are seeing in the field
is an accepted, appropriate conservation practice
in the agriculture environment — why it’s there,
what it’s doing, what [the] food safety concerns are
and what strategies can be used for risk reduction
associated with that practice. . . . [T]here continues
to be this need to go back [and] look at the research
to actually balance food safety and sustainability
in the field. The research is happening. The process
of developing implementation strategies is not
there. As a land-grant institution, we should be
doing that.
Discussion
As the narrative accounts summarized in this article
reveal, aspects of the policy engagement generated
by Extension projects are often hidden or poorly un-
derstood. The narrative accounts reveal a disjuncture
between the language that Extension leaders and
academics often use to describe and emphasize their
policy roles and the complex, multifaceted activities
evident in successful examples of Extension policy
engagement. Our data thus points toward a necessary
reconsideration of the story that the Extension system
tells itself and the public about its policy role and work.
Our research points toward a different story — one that
Kelley Brian
At an elementary school
embraces both technical and relational work and that in Sacramento County, a
communicates the ways in which, in concrete settings, child harvests produce
we weave those types of work together. grown as part of the
In terms of the literature reviewed earlier, the nar- Shaping Healthy Choices
project. The project was an
ratives we have analyzed suggest that Extension is example of stakeholder-
particularly well situated to play a critical public role oriented experimental
in the research-to-policy process. But this will only be research.
possible if Extension exhibits a clearer understanding
and stronger embrace of recent scholarship in science
and technology studies — scholarship that emphasizes
the social and political embeddedness of research.
Extension will be most
relevant in policy circles
if, instead of embracing
Aspects of the policy engagement
a narrower understand- conducted by Cooperative
ing of itself as a provider
of evidence-based solu-
Extension projects are often
tions, it embraces both its hidden or poorly understood.
technical and democratic
strengths — if it informs the content of policy options
while also participating, with respect and a certain hu-
mility, in the social and relational processes by which
policy is shaped.
Our case evidence provides tentative support for
three generalizations about how we conceptualize and
support research-to-policy activities at land-grant uni-
versities. First, we need to reconsider what counts as
policy relevance. A typical current pattern is to focus
on research with the potential to shape decisions on
issues already on the policy agenda because of pending
legislation, pending regulation or other factors. In con-
trast, our case narratives show (table 1) how Extension
engagement can occur at multiple stages of the policy
process, from agenda setting to formulation to legiti-
mation to implementation to evaluation (Jones 1984).
As one PI noted:
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  17
 Policy work doesn’t only involve passing [formal] laws. Policy
work also is . . . the community organizing and the base building
and the capacity building and the political education that can
then help people engage in [the] policy realm. So I think there are
a lot of things that are policy-relevant that are outside of, or lead
into, the formal policy world.
As our case examples show, Extension can help reveal issues;
bring them to the attention of policymakers; frame alternative solu-
tions; and aid in implementing and evaluating policies once they are
enacted. Regarded from this viewpoint, a broad range of Extension
activity can be considered policy relevant. This reality should inform
how we talk about Extension’s public value.
Second, our evidence suggests that policy impact and public value
are seldom a matter of short-term engagement with policymakers,
conducted from a detached vantage point. Rather, policy impact and
public value proceed from Extension personnel making it a point to
embed themselves in policy networks over time. Network relation-
ships, nurtured in countless small and large conversations and en-
counters, are critical to the ability of Extension personnel to inform
and shape policy. One practical implication of this insight is that, if
the goal is policy relevance, awarding grants through a short-term
competitive process may be less useful than providing adequate
funding and support for the “boots-on-the-ground” capacity of the
Extension system. A further implication is that policy-related work —
including the patient relationship building that is critical to the long-
term success of such work — must be accounted for and valued in
Extension’s merit and promotion processes. Publications often receive
emphasis because they are easy to count and evaluate, but published
research without relational underpinnings is less likely to achieve
public impact.
Third, our evidence indicates that the settings and spaces in
which policy work occurs are more varied than is often depicted.
For most researchers, the word “policy” conveys an image of formal
governmental decision-making venues. But as the literature and our
cases demonstrate, policy work takes shape not only in legislatures
and agencies but also in complex governance systems characterized
by multiple individual and institutional players, shifting coalitions,
diverse values and ongoing power relations. Providing sound, tech-
nical information to inform particular decision-makers will always
be important, but so is the ability of Extension to develop, convene
and nurture high-functioning knowledge-action networks in which
knowledge coproduction is the norm.
By combining its technical expertise with its ability to foster delib-
erative dialogue within diverse communities and networks, Extension
can make, and is making, a major contribution to society. The three
models of effective policy-oriented relationship building that we de-
scribe in this paper — community-government partnership building,
stakeholder-oriented experimental research, and community empow-
erment — demonstrate ways in which this synthesis is already present
in Extension practices. Future research might helpfully explore how
the three approaches we have found are relevant in other contexts, or
ways in which they might overlap in the context of a particular policy
intervention or a particular Extension agent’s career. Research might
also explore and discover additional approaches that did not appear
in our relatively small sample. In the meantime, Extension leaders
should rethink the narrative that they use to explain and justify their
institution’s public value. c
C. Gupta is Public Policy Specialist, Department of Human Ecology, UC Davis;
D. Campbell is Community Studies Specialist, Department of Human Ecology,
UC Davis; and A. Cole-Weiss is Graduate, Community Development master’s
program, UC Davis.

References
Best A, Holmes B. 2010. Systems
thinking, knowledge and ac-
tion: Towards better models
and methods. Evid Policy
6(2):145–59.
Campbell D, Feenstra G. 2005.
Community food systems and
the work of public scholarship.
In: Peters SJ, Jordan NR, Adamek
M, et al. (eds.). Engaging Campus
and Community: The Practice
of Public Scholarship in the
State and Land-Grant University
System. Dayton, OH: Kettering
Foundation Pr. 499 p.
Cash DW. 2001. “In order to aid
in diffusing useful and practi-
cal information”: Agricultural
Extension and boundary orga-
nizations. Sci Technol Hum Val
26(4):431–53.
Clark WC, van Kerkhoff L, Lebel
L, Gallopin GC. 2016. Crafting
usable knowledge for sustain-
able development. P Natl Acad
Sci USA 113(17):4570–8.
Collins H, Evans R. 2007. Rethink-
ing Expertise. Chicago: University
of Chicago Pr. 176 p.
Epstein D, Heidt J, Farina CR.
2014. The value of words: Narra-
tive as evidence in policy mak-
ing. Evid Policy 6(2):243–58.
Franz NK. 2011. Advancing
the public value movement:
Sustaining Extension during
tough times. J Extension 49(2).
www.joe.org/joe/2011april/
comm2.php
Frederick AL. 1998. Extension
education opportunities with
policymakers. J Extension 36(2).
www.joe.org/joe/1998april/
comm1.php
Graffy EA. 2008. Meeting the
challenges of policy-relevant
science: Bridging theory and
practice. Public Admin Rev
68(6):1087–100.
Jasanoff S. 2009. The Fifth
Branch: Science Advisers as
Policymakers. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Pr. 320 p.
Jones CO. 1984. An Introduction
to the Study of Public Policy
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wad-
sworth. 276 p.
López Cerezo JA, González
García M. 1996. Lay knowledge
and public participation in tech-
nological and environmental
policy. Philos Tech 2(1):53–72.
Morton LW. 2002. Building
local knowledge for develop-
ing health policy through
key informant interviews. J
Extension 40(1). www.joe.org/
joe/2002february/a7.php
Morton S. 2015. Creating
research impact: The roles of
research users in interactive re-
search mobilization. Evid Policy
11(1):35–55.
Muñoz-Erickson TA. 2014.
Co-production of knowledge–
action systems in urban sustain-
able governance: The KASA
approach. Environ Sci Policy
37:182–91.
Murdock A, Shariff R, Wilding K.
2013. Knowledge exchange be-
tween academia and the third
sector. Evid Policy 9(3):419–30.
Nutley SM, Walter I, Davies HTO.
2007. Using Evidence: How Re-
search Can Inform Public Services.
Bristol, UK: Policy Pr. 376 p.
Patton DB, Blaine TW. 2001.
Public issues education:
Exploring Extension’s role. J
Extension 39(4). www.joe.org/
joe/2001august/a2.php
Pearce W, Wesselink A, Cole-
batch H. 2014. Evidence and
meaning in policy making. Evid
Policy 10(2):161–5.
Peters SJ, Alter TR, Schwartz-
bach N. 2010. Democracy and
Higher Education: Traditions and
Stories of Civic Engagement. East
Lansing, MI: Michigan State Uni-
versity Pr. 529 p.
Peters S, Franz NK. 2012. Stories
and storytelling in Extension
work. J Extension 50(4). www.
joe.org/joe/2012august/a1.php
Putnam RD. 2000. Bowling
Alone: The Collapse and Revival of
American Community. New York:
Simon and Schuster.
Reynolds J, Kizito J, Ezumah N,
et al. 2011. Quality assurance of
qualitative research: A review of
the discourse. Health Res Policy
Sy 9(43). doi:10.1186/1478-
4505-9-43
Smathers CA, Lobb JM. 2015. Ex-
tension professionals and com-
munity coalitions: Professional
development opportunities
related to leadership and policy,
system, and environment
change. J Extension 53(6). www.
joe.org/joe/2015december/
a1.php
Weick KE, Sutcliffe KM, Obstfeld
D. 2005. Organizing and the
process of sensemaking. Organ
Sci 16(4):409–21.
Weiss CH. 1979. The many
meanings of research utilization.
Public Admin Rev 39(5):426–31.

18 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

RESEARCH ARTICLE
UC ANR research informs, influences and
strengthens fruit and vegetable programs
and policies
UC Nutrition Policy Institute research has helped guide state and national policies that improve
child and family health.
by Patricia B. Crawford, Wendi Gosliner, Kenneth Hecht and Lorrene D. Ritchie
I
ncreasing intake of vegetables and fruit is key to
improving health. The scientific basis for the impor-
tant role that vegetable and fruit consumption plays
in lowering the risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes,
stroke and some cancers is well established in the
Dietary Guidelines for Americans (USDHHS, USDA
2015). Increases in vegetable and fruit consumption
could also reduce national health care expenses. One
study estimated that the annual health care costs and
lost productivity associated with inadequate vegetable
and fruit intake in the United States totaled over $63
billion in 2012 (Allen 2015). Further, if the population
transitioned to more plant-based foods, it would help
reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate climate
change (Hallström et al. 2017).
Online: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0038
Abstract
Vegetable and fruit consumption plays an important role in lowering
the risk of obesity, heart disease, diabetes, stroke and some cancers.
Yet, only 20% of the population eats the daily recommended amount
of produce, and 10% of children do not consume any vegetables or
fruit on a daily basis. To increase vegetable and fruit intake across the
population, which can extend lives and reduce health care expenditures
while also enhancing demand for California agricultural products, the
UC Nutrition Policy Institute has conducted research to guide public
policy and institutional and community programs. The institute has
studied produce consumption among children and families in child
care settings, emergency food systems, schools and federal nutrition
assistance programs. Conducting research to support policymakers
in deciding on effective nutrition programs and policies involves
partnering with community organizations and decision-makers from the
outset, collecting qualitative as well as quantitative data, and sharing
research findings with those who can act upon them.
Currently, only 20% of the U.S.
population eats the daily recommended
amounts of vegetables and fruits.
One study estimated that the annual
health care costs and lost productivity
associated with inadequate vegetable
and fruit intake in the United States
totaled over $63 billion in 2012.
Lance Cheung, USDA
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  19
 Currently only 20% of the population eats the daily
recommended amounts of vegetables and fruit: 2.5
cups of vegetables and 2 cups of fruit for a typical adult
consuming 2,000 calories per day. Ten percent of all
children do not consume any vegetables or fruit on a
daily basis (USDHHS, USDA 2015). The need to im-
prove vegetable and fruit intake is clear.
Changing physical and social
environments
UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) has been a long-
standing leader in educating children and families
about healthy diets. More recently, it has paired its con-
ventional healthy eating educational efforts with efforts
to change physical and social environments. Environ-
mental change approaches include improving access to
vegetables and fruit in places where families live, work,
learn and play. The goal is to make healthy choices nor-
mative by ensuring they are available, affordable and
appealing. Because changing food environments often
calls for broad population-level public policy efforts, it
is important to understand ways in which academics
in UCCE can interact with the policy process. Clearly,
research evidence is needed to identify and support the
policy and environmental changes that are most effec-
tive in changing population behaviors.
The Nutrition Policy Institute (NPI), located in
UC’s Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources
(ANR), was created in 2014. NPI’s goal is to conduct
Public Policy
Study policies at the
government level
Community-wide
Study policies that influence
community settings
Institutional
Study policies that influence
institutional settings
Individuals &
Families
FIG. 1. Socio-ecological model of applications for policy-relevant research.
20 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
and disseminate research to inform food and nutrition
policy and programs that promote nutritional health
and prevent obesity and chronic disease. Based upon its
research and that of others, NPI provides recommen-
dations to policymakers, administrators, health care
providers and community organizations.
The socio-ecological model (fig. 1), which describes
multiple circles of influence on the behavior of individ-
uals and families (institutions, community and public
policy), can be used to guide planning and evalua-
tion of interventions to improve population nutrition
(McLaren and Hawe 2005). To improve vegetable and
fruit consumption in California and across the nation,
NPI’s research targets all three circles of influence:
institutions, such as schools and child care facilities;
community programs, such as food banks and pantry
programs; and government programs, such as the fed-
eral food programs.
School and child care studies
Local school systems and early childhood educational
settings provide an important opportunity for tradi-
tional nutrition education to influence behavior. In
addition, they can be ideal venues for institutional in-
terventions to change the food environment.
School Lunch Initiative
One early study by NPI researchers was among the first
to demonstrate the effectiveness of combining school
nutrition education and hands-on school gardening
and cooking programs, and revamping the school meal
offerings and dining environment (Wang et al. 2010).
It assessed the impact of the School Lunch Initiative,
established in the early 2000s by the Berkeley Unified
School District in partnership with the Chez Panisse
Foundation and the Center for Ecoliteracy. Changes
in children’s knowledge, attitudes and behaviors were
compared according to how often they participated in
the educational, gardening and cooking programs.
NPI found that students who participated more
often in the educational, cooking and gardening ele-
ments of the program increased their consumption of
vegetables and fruit by one-third of a cup per day. The
study was the first to observe that students in such a
program also increase their vegetable and fruit intake
during nonschool hours. This research was used to
support continued program funding by the Berkeley
Unified School District, and it was welcomed by other
school districts and advocates across the country as
it provided rigorous evidence that well-implemented,
comprehensive interventions incorporating menu
changes, school gardens and cooking and nutrition
education can significantly impact students’ produce
consumption and, by extension, their health.
School breakfasts
NPI researchers have also examined the compara-
tive nutritional quality of breakfast at school versus
breakfast at home. Perhaps surprisingly, the evidence
suggested that school breakfast participants ate more
fruit than their home-eating counterparts, a find-
ing that has supported the work of the federal School
Breakfast Program and has encouraged California leg-
islators to retain a small subsidy for the federal School
Breakfast Program (Au et al. 2016).
In addition, the research showed vegetable and fruit
intake was related to how the school breakfast was
served. Children who attended schools where breakfast
was served in the classroom at the start of the school
day (as opposed to in the cafeteria before school began
or during the first recess after school began) consumed
significantly more total fruit, whole fruit, and greens
and beans, a category of vegetables that tends to be in-
adequately consumed by children (Ritchie et al. 2016).
This NPI research provides a strong rationale for the
classroom breakfast model.
A longer lunch period
Another study by NPI researchers identified additional
factors associated with increased vegetable and fruit
consumption at school. A longer lunch period, the
presence of a salad bar, better-quality fruit and student
involvement in food service decision-making were
all associated with increased produce consumption
at school (Gosliner 2014). These findings were used
as scientific evidence to support a bill, California AB
292 (Santiago 2015–2016), to increase the time public
school students are allotted for eating lunch. While the
bill has not yet passed, the issue continues to be on the
policy agenda. Collectively, these school-based studies
identified a number of program, policy and environ-
mental changes that schools can take to maximize stu-
dents’ consumption of vegetables and fruit.
Child care nutrition
Reflecting concern about the alarming rates of obesity
among our youngest children, NPI has made early
childhood nutrition a high priority for its research. In
2008, at a time when almost nothing was known about
the food-related policies and practices in early child-
hood settings, NPI partnered with California Food
Policy Advocates to conduct the first statewide survey
of nutrition in licensed child care facilities in Califor-
nia (Ritchie et al. 2012).
Included in the study were over 400 child care sites
ranging from Head Start centers and state preschools
to private centers and home-based programs. Some of
the centers and homes (including Head Start and state
preschools) participated in USDA’s Child and Adult
Care Food Program (CACFP), the child care equivalent
of the National School Lunch Program.
Results demonstrated that CACFP sites in general,
and Head Start centers in particular, served more
vegetables and fruit than child care sites that did not
participate in CACFP. The study findings provided
much-needed evidence to support efforts to provide
better nutrition to all children in child care and were
Peter Howard, USDA
Researchers with the UC
influential in informing the first major updates to the Nutrition Policy Institute
CACFP nutrition standards, which went into effect in found that childcare sites
October 2018. participating in the federal
The study results also formed the basis of California Child and Adult Care Food
AB 2084 (Brownley 2010), the Healthy Beverages in Program served more
fruits and vegetables to
Child Care Act, which contains the country’s strongest young children than sites
nutrition standards for what children drink in child not participating in the
care. Further, the drinking water requirement in AB program.
2084 was incorporated in the Healthy, Hunger-Free
Kids Act of 2010 (HHFKA). HHFKA is the federal law
reauthorizing CACFP and the other child nutrition
programs; thus, NPI’s research informed the law that
now ensures that children in child care anywhere in the
country are guaranteed access to free, fresh drinking
water throughout the day.
Food bank nutrition studies
Outside of school and child care, produce availability
in other community settings can affect family con-
sumption patterns. Food banks and their associated
pantries are an important community resource. As
more families, even those with working adults, struggle
to make ends meet financially, local food banks have
grown to meet the need. Currently, emergency food
organizations help to feed approximately 14% of all
people in the United States annually, including 12 mil-
lion children (Feeding America 2014).
The Food Bank of Central New York (FBCNY), an
agency at the forefront of food banks concerned about
the nutritional impact of the food distributed, asked
NPI to evaluate its 2006 policy to decline donations of
sodas, snack foods and candy. Many stakeholders in
food banking felt client choices should not be limited
in that way. NPI gathered food preference information
from clients of FBCNY’s food pantries to inform poten-
tial revision of the food bank’s soda and candy policy.
Results showed that pantry clients overwhelm-
ingly preferred to receive vegetables and fruit as
well as meat, poultry and fish over soda, candy and
snack foods (Campbell et al. 2011). Altogether, 90%
or more reported that vegetables and fruit were very
important or important to receive at a pantry, and
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  21
 more than 85% reported that soda, candy and snacks
were only somewhat or not important. As a result of
this study, FBCNY strengthened its policy prohibit-
ing donation of sugary beverages and snacks, and it
demonstrated the substantial reduction in distribu-
tion of these products by monitoring the annual
inventory over a 4-year period. NPI’s research has
helped to galvanize food banks across the country to
enact similar policies.
In California, NPI monitored fresh vegetable and
fruit donations using inventory data from six food
banks between 2007 and 2010. During this period, pro-
duce donations increased to make up over 50% of the
weight of total foods in the food banks’ inventory, with
fresh vegetables and fruit becoming the largest source
of produce (Ross et al. 2013).
To help other food banks mirror the successes
of the New York and California food banks, Kaiser
Permanente funded NPI to provide technical assistance
to 20 food banks across the country (including 11 in
California) to develop and implement nutrition policies
that emphasized the need for increased produce and
discouraged donations of sugary beverages and snack
foods. All of these food banks now have such policies
in place, confirmed by a follow-up process evaluation
conducted by NPI.
Finally, to widely disseminate technical assistance
and support for food bank nutrition policies, Kaiser
Permanente funded the
development of a free mas-
The MOOC . . . has helped to sive open online course,
change the culture of food or MOOC (Campbell et al.
2015). To date, thousands of
banking — from focusing on people across the country,
the distribution of the maximum including UCCE advisors
poundage of any food to focusing and staff, have participated
in this course and have
on the distribution of nutritious downloaded the resource
guides produced. The
food that supports health. MOOC promotes healthful
offerings at food banks and
pantries by detailing the steps necessary for adopting
nutrition policies. This course has helped to change
the culture of food banking — from focusing on the
distribution of the maximum poundage of any food
to focusing on the distribution of nutritious food that
supports health.
Federal program evaluations
Changes to government programs and policies have
had a significant impact on improving dietary behav-
iors; they impact large segments of the population and
can profoundly impact vegetable and fruit intake. NPI’s
numerous studies of federal food programs, includ-
ing the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for
Women, Infants and Children (WIC), CACFP, National
School Lunch Program, and School Breakfast Program,
have contributed to these changes.
22 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
WIC food package changes
NPI’s work with WIC demonstrates how research
can affect policy. WIC provides supplemental foods
to qualifying low-income children and pregnant and
postpartum women. It is a large program: More than
half the babies born in California are enrolled in WIC.
In addition to food, the program provides nutrition
education, which includes teaching families why and
how to eat more vegetables and fruit.
At the federal level, the package of supplemental
foods available to WIC participants was slated to
change in 2009, to add vegetables and fruit, among
other improvements — the first such change to the pro-
gram since its establishment in the early 1970s. To un-
derstand whether vegetable and fruit education would
support participants in using the newly provided access
to produce, NPI collaborated with PHFE-WIC (the
largest WIC program in California) and the state WIC
branch to evaluate educational sessions being provided
by all California WIC clinics.
In 2008, a telephone survey was administered to
a cross-section of more than 3,000 California WIC
participants immediately before and 6 months after
they received the produce-promoting education from
WIC. Six months following the nutrition education,
the women and caregivers reported increased recogni-
tion of the educational messages and increased family
consumption of fruit (but not vegetables) (Ritchie et
al. 2010). These results supported the policy changes
to WIC foods and highlighted the effectiveness of the
combination of educational and structural support.
NPI researchers also conducted other studies of the
impact of the 2009 WIC food package changes. One
study examined diet quality data from the National
Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which in-
cluded a national sample of 1,197 preschool children,
age 2 to 4 years, from low-income families before and
after the food package changes. Increases in intakes
of greens and beans were higher for WIC participants
than those for non-WIC participants during a time
when vegetable consumption seemed to decrease for
children not participating in WIC (Tester et al. 2016).
In a California study, random samples of children
participating in WIC (3,004 children in 2009, 2,996 in
2010) were surveyed before and after the 2009 changes
to WIC foods. The findings revealed small but signifi-
cant increases in consumption of vegetables and fruit
(Whaley et al. 2012).
For informing future directions, it’s important not
only to document the dietary impacts of policy change
but also to understand the perceptions of those im-
pacted. Thus, NPI evaluated participant satisfaction
with the WIC food package changes. Although WIC
participants reported being highly satisfied with all
changes (more whole grains, lower-fat dairy, less juice
and cheese), the addition of vegetables and fruit was
among the most highly rated (Ritchie et al. 2014).
Taken together, these WIC studies documented that
the new food package was well accepted and impactful.
This type of information can play a role in support-
ing program reforms and in informing members of
Congress when they are considering WIC authoriza-
tion or appropriations.
Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
In 2010-2011, NPI collaborated on a nationwide evalu-
ation of the USDA Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program
(FFVP), a program in which schools with high num-
bers of low-income students are funded to provide free
vegetable and fruit snacks to all students (Olsho et al.
2015). Schools participating in FFVP are encouraged to
distribute a wide variety of fresh vegetables and fruit,
at least two per week, including types to which students
might not otherwise be exposed.
The study compared the intake of 4,696 elementary
students at schools that did and did not participate in
FFVP. The results showed that daily mean vegetable
and fruit intake was one-third of a cup higher among
students at schools participating in FFVP compared to
the intake of those at nonparticipating schools. In addi-
tion, vegetable and fruit consumption increased outside
of school. Evidence like this informs the policymakers
whose decisions determine whether such successful
nutrition programs will continue.
National leadership
Researchers can impact policy also by participating in
efforts that shape national policies, such as serving on
committees of the National Academy of Sciences, state-
wide commissions and similar influential bodies. NPI
researchers have provided national leadership on ways
to improve vegetable and fruit consumption by serving
on the committee that recently contributed to the gov-
ernment’s Healthy People 2020 initiative.
Healthy People 2020 provides science-based
national objectives for improving the health of
Americans. These objectives provide guidance for state
and local public health planning and programming.
Recently, NPI co-authored the Healthy People 2020
Law and Health Policy Project report on successful
policy strategies to improve vegetable and fruit con-
sumption (Crawford et al. 2018). The report contains
examples of effective policy interventions that can help
shape the environment to improve vegetable and fruit
consumption. Examples of these include the use of tax
revenues to support vegetable and fruit programs in
schools that both educate and encourage students to try
new kinds of vegetables and fruit and the use of state
and local policies to alter the built environment to pro-
vide increased space for vegetable and fruit stands and
mobile carts.
Scaled and combined interventions
These case examples highlight different types of re-
search undertaken to inform, influence and strengthen
policy and programs related to vegetable and fruit
USDA
consumption in the various circles of influence in the The more changes
socio-ecological model. Research-based action in more that support increased
vegetable and fruit
than one circle is critical because it has the greatest consumption, the more
chance of success in expanding vegetable and fruit likely they are to lead to
demand and consumption (IOM 2012). Connections the desired outcomes:
between circles of influence can be explicit or discov- improved consumption
ered over time. For example, changing public policy among individuals and
by modifying the WIC food package or school meal families, better population
health and expanded
regulations has driven changes in community food
markets for California-
environments, and local institutions have responded grown produce.
by implementing additional supportive interventions.
The more changes that support increased vegetable and
fruit consumption, the more likely they are to lead to
the desired outcomes: improved consumption among
individuals and families, better population health and
expanded markets for California-grown produce.
Although the dietary impact of a single interven-
tion will not likely be large, if interventions are scaled
and combined, the impact can be dramatic (IOM 2012).
Even an increase in vegetable and fruit intake of one-
fourth cup daily can substantially impact population
health and reduce health care costs while increasing
demand for vegetables and fruit. For example, if all
residents of California were to increase their daily
vegetable and fruit consumption by one-fourth cup,
Californians would purchase 3.6 billion more cups of
vegetables and fruit every year. Further, if consump-
tion levels increased enough to move any portion of
the population from eating vegetables and fruit less
than once to more than three times daily, those who
improved their intake could see as much as a 27% lower
risk of stroke, a 24% lower risk of heart disease and a
15% lower risk of all-cause mortality (Bazzano et al.
2002).
Lessons on using research to
create change
Throughout more than a decade of policy-relevant
research, NPI has learned important lessons that can
be applied in other fields and on topics other than veg-
etable and fruit consumption. These include the value
of providing research-based guidance to advocates and
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  23
 policymakers in clear and actionable ways. Documents
such as the Healthy People 2020 Law and Health Policy
Project report provide a wide variety of research-based
strategies by which local and state government and
nongovernment agencies can work to improve vegeta-
ble and fruit access. Translating findings using reports,
briefs and fact sheets and presenting results and recom-
mendations directly to advocates and policymakers can
facilitate the use of research to create positive change.
While quantitative data often are beneficial for
informing policy debates, qualitative data also are
influential. Qualitative data that capture the voices of
those impacted by change provide illustrative insights
and important context for interpreting quantitative
data. Sometimes, a compelling anecdote that makes a
personal connection can influence policymakers more
than the most rigorous scientific findings. Under con-
tract with the California Endowment, NPI interviewed
kindergarten children on what they thought of after-
school meal standards that had increased vegetable and
fruit offerings. From the mouths of children came “We
love the new purple and green foods.” Complete stories,
with the numbers linked to an anecdote or quote, are
the most compelling to policymakers.
The science that UC ANR brings to policy debates is
fundamental, but the right research questions must be
developed to supply the information that policymak-
ers need. NPI has learned to work closely with agencies
and participant populations to identify critical areas
that can benefit from research that is both scientifi-
cally valid and policy relevant. In this way, the research
provides a bridge between academia and the world at
large and is facilitated by partnerships, which is an
ANR goal. Partnering with community organizations
from the outset helps to ensure that the research ques-
tions posed are relevant and that the answers can offer
realistic and practicable solutions.
Finally, NPI has learned that discussing the re-
search study findings at meetings with stakeholders,
including policy- and decision-makers, is important.
It provides an opportunity for stakeholders to identify
meaningful solutions, and for researchers to learn of
the policy-relevant questions that have the highest pri-
ority and need answering next. In sum, we’ve learned
that conducting policy-relevant research involves col-
laboration throughout the entire process — partnering
from the outset with community organizations and
decision-makers, collecting and collaboratively evalu-
ating qualitative as well as quantitative data, interpret-
ing results with consideration of policy relevance, and
sharing results and recommendations with those who
can act upon them. c
P.B. Crawford is Emeritus Director of Research and UC Cooperative
Extension Specialist, W. Gosliner is Director of Strategy and Project
Scientist, K. Hecht is Director of Policy, and L.D. Ritchie is Director
and UC Cooperative Extension Specialist, Nutrition Policy Institute,
UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources.

References
Allen R. 2015. 2015 GAP Analy-
sis — The Federal Fruit and
Vegetable Consumption Chal-
lenge: How Federal Spending
Falls Short of Addressing Public
Health Needs. Produce for Bet-
ter Health Foundation. www.
pbhfoundation.org/
Au LE, Rosen NJ, Fenton K, et
al. 2016. Eating school lunch
is associated with higher diet
quality among elementary
school students. J Acad Nutr
Diet 116:1817–24.
Bazzano LA, He J, Ogden LG,
et al. 2002. Fruit and vegetable
intake and risk of cardiovascular
disease in US adults: The first
National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey Epidemio-
logic Follow-up Study. Am J Clin
Nutr 76:93–9.
Brownley J. 2010. California AB
2084 Healthy Beverages in Child
Care Act. www.leginfo.ca.gov/
pub/09-10/bill/asm/ab_2051-
2100/ab_2084_bill_20100930_
chaptered.html
Campbell E, Hudson H, Webb K,
Crawford PB. 2011. Food prefer-
ences of users of the emer-
gency food system. J Hunger
Env Nutr 6:179–87.
Campbell E, Webb K, Ross M,
et al. 2015. Nutrition-Focused
Food Banking. National Acad-
emy of Sciences, Engineering
and Medicine. p 1–11. https:/
nam.edu/perspectives-2015-nu-
trition-focused-food-banking/
Crawford PB, Dunning L, Kap-
pagoda M, O’Connor J. 2018.
Healthy People 2020: Law and
Health Policy Project. Centers
for Disease Control and Preven-
tion, Atlanta, GA. www.cdc.
gov/phlp/publications/topic/
hp2020.html
Feeding America. 2014. Hunger
in America. www.feedingamer-
ica.org/hunger-in-america/our-
research/hunger-in-america/
Gosliner W. 2014. School-
level factors associated with
increased fruit and vegetable
consumption among students
in California middle and high
schools. J Sch Health 84:559–68.
Hallström E, Gee Q, Scarbor-
ough P, Cleveland DA. 2017. A
healthier US diet could reduce
greenhouse gas emissions
from both the food and health
care systems. Climate Change
142:199–212.
[IOM] Institute of Medicine.
2012. Accelerating Progress in
Obesity Prevention: Solving the
Weight of the Nation. Washing-
ton, DC: The National Acad-
emies Press. 478 p.
McLaren L, Hawe P. 2005. Eco-
logical perspectives in health
research. J Epidemiol Commun
H 59:6–14.
Olsho LEW, Klerman JA, Ritchie
L, et al. 2015. Increasing child
fruit and vegetable intake: Find-
ings from the US Department
of Agriculture Fresh Fruit and
Vegetable Program. J Acad Nutr
Diet 115:1283–90.
Ritchie LD, Boyle M, Chandran
K, et al. 2012. Participation in
the child and adult care food
program is associated with
more nutritious foods and bev-
erages in child care. Child Obes
8:224–9.
Ritchie L, Rosen NJ, Fenton K,
et al. 2016. School breakfast
policy is associated with dietary
intake of fourth and fifth grade
students. J Acad Nutr Diet
116:449–57.
Ritchie LD, Whaley SE, Spector P,
et al. 2010. Favorable impact of
nutrition education on Califor-
nia WIC families. J Nutr Ed Behav
42:S2–S10.
Ritchie LD, Whaley SE, Spector
P, et al. 2014. Satisfaction of
California WIC participants with
food package changes. J Nutr
Ed Behav 46:S71–S78.
Ross M, Campbell EC, Webb
KL. 2013. Recent trends in the
nutritional quality of food banks’
food and beverage inventory:
Case studies of six California
food banks. J Hunger Env Nutr
8:294–309.
Santiago M. 2015–2016. Cali-
fornia AB 292 Pupil nutrition:
Free or reduced-price meals:
Adequate time to eat. https://
leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/
faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_
id=201520160AB292
Tester JM, Leung CW, Crawford
PB. 2016. Revised WIC food
package and children’s diet
quality. Pediatrics 137(5).
[USDHHS, USDA] US Depart-
ment of Health and Human
Services and US Department of
Agriculture. 2015. 2015–2020
Dietary Guidelines for Ameri-
cans (8th ed.). 144 p. http://
health.gov/dietaryguide-
lines/2015/guidelines/
Wang MC, Rauzon S, Studer N,
et al. 2010. Exposure to a com-
prehensive school intervention
increases vegetable consump-
tion. J Adolesc Health 47:74–82.
Whaley SE, Ritchie LD, Spector
P, Gomez J. 2012. Revised WIC
food package improves diets
of WIC families. J Nutr Ed Behav
44:204–9.

24 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

RESEARCH ARTICLE

UC ANR research and education influences

landscape water conservation and public policy
For more than 30 years, UC has tackled the obstacles that inhibit widespread landscape water
conservation, with new science, trainings and contributions to state policy.
by Janet S. Hartin, Lorence R. Oki, David W. Fujino, Karrie Reid, Charles A. Ingels, Darren L. Haver and William N. Baker

F
or nearly three decades, California has mandated
practices to improve landscape water use effi-
ciency and conservation. The goal of state policies
has been to ensure a steady and reliable water source
while maintaining healthy sustainable landscapes.
Strategies have included the adoption of landscape ir-
rigation standards, water budgets and tiered water rates
favoring conservation, and also increased education to
the landscape industry and the public.
UC has been influential in developing and provid-
ing credible science-backed information to inform
legislative actions. It has also reduced the obstacles that
were inhibiting widespread landscape water conserva-
tion: a lack of credible information regarding landscape
water requirements, inadequate training across a large
segment of the landscape industry, lagging irrigation
system technology, and an inadequate supply of locally
available drought-resistant landscape plants.
Online: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0041
Abstract
UC has been heavily involved in research and extension efforts
impacting landscape water conservation legislation for over 30 years.
In 1981, UC implemented the California Irrigation Management
Information System, a network of weather stations that provides
data for local estimates of plant water needs. Those estimates led
to UC being able to advise the California Legislature on policies
for maximum applied water allowances for residential and large
landscaping projects. The allowances have been reduced significantly
with UC guidance, and UC has helped landscapers to meet the
increasingly restrictive requirements. Best practices that reduce
water losses have been developed in collaboration with equipment
manufacturers and landscaping specialists, and explained to end
users. In addition, UC has developed the WUCOLS database, which
classifies over 3,500 plants by their water needs. UC’s involvement in
landscape water conservation continues on many fronts, developing
science and contributing to policy.

UCCE Advisor Chuck

Ingels speaks to the press
in Sacramento about
water conservation.
UC has developed a
database that categorizes
3,500 plants by their
water needs.
Lorence Oki

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  25
 Between 40% and 60% of the potable water supply
used in urban areas is applied to large-scale and resi-
dential landscapes (Kjelgren et al. 2000; St. Hilaire et
al. 2008), and up to 60% of water applied by overhead
sprinklers is lost due to runoff from soil surfaces, deep
percolation below root zones and soil evaporation
(Hartin and McArthur 2007; Hartin et al. 2017). With
California’s population expected to increase from 39
million to 60 million by 2050 (Dieter and Maupin
2017), water conservation in small residential land-
scapes and large landscaped areas, such as commercial
sites, parks and school grounds, will remain critical,
Glossary
Evapotranspiration (ET): The water evaporated from soil around plants and
the water taken up by plants through transpiration, expressed in inches per
unit time.
Reference evapotranspiration (ETo): An estimate of water used by a
healthy, well-watered, full-covered surface of cool-season turfgrass maintained
at 4 to 7 inches tall at a given location; determined by temperature, solar radia-
tion, wind speed and relative humidity (real-time ETo for approximately 140
weather stations throughout California can be found at cimis.water.ca.gov).
Plant factor (PF): Reflects the specific water need of a given plant species
(usually a noncrop plant) expressed as a fraction of ETo (ETc = ETo × PF).
Crop coefficient (Kc): Reflects the specific water needs of a given crop plant
grown in a monoculture (ETc = ETo × Kc); in landscape settings, generally used
solely for turfgrass and groundcover species.
Irrigation efficiency (IE): The portion of the total applied irrigation water
taken up by the plant; low IE indicates a significant fraction of applied water is
lost through runoff and evaporation from surrounding soil.
Evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF): Ratio of PF or Kc to irriga-
tion efficiency (ETAF = PF or Kc/IE); in California, landscape water demand stan-
dards are set according to a maximum allowable ETAF value, which recognizes
that overall water efficiency depends on both plant species (reflected in the
plant factor) and an efficient, well-maintained irrigation system.
Maximum applied water allowance (MAWA): The maximum amount of
water needed to irrigate a specified landscaped area, expressed in gallons per
year; based on the reference evapotranspiration (ETo), evapotranspiration ad-
justment factor (ETAF) and the size of the landscaped area.
TABLE 1. Plant factors (PF)/crop coefficients (Kc) for established landscape plants in
California
Plant factor (PF)*/
Plant type Crop coefficient (Kc)†
Landscape plants with high water use 0.7–0.9*
Landscape plants with medium/moderate 0.4–0.6*
water use
Landscape plants with low water use 0.1–0.3*
Landscape plants with very low water use < 0.1*
Warm-season turfgrass (Bermudagrass, zoysiagrass, 0.6†
St. Augustinegrass, buffalograss)
Cool-season turfgrass (tall fescue, Kentucky 0.8†
bluegrass, ryegrass, bentgrass)
26 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
and temporary water restrictions imposed during
drought are likely to become permanent in many parts
of the state.
Water conservation will need to offset the growth
in demand. Nearly one-half of the state’s population
growth since 2005 has occurred in inland Southern
California and the Central Valley due to the lower
housing costs in these areas (Hanak and Davis 2006).
These inland properties require higher amounts of
supplemental water than coastal areas due to warmer
climates and larger landscaped areas.
The science of landscape water use
Determining how much water is required by hetero-
geneous landscapes containing multiple species of
plants is more complicated than determining the water
needs of a field of a single crop species. It would be
challenging and time consuming to assess the water
requirements of the thousands of native and nonna-
tive landscape plants that are suited to California’s
Mediterranean climate. Moreover, urban landscape
plantings vary in density (plants per unit area), which
can significantly alter the water needs of a landscape.
In addition, the urban environment includes a variety
of microclimates; shade by tall plant species and build-
ings and other factors commonly create microclimates
that influence water needs (Nouri et al. 2016; St. Hilaire
et al. 2008).
UC has been heavily involved in developing strate-
gies that directly respond to these challenges (Hartin et
al. 2018). In 1981, the pioneering California Irrigation
Management Information System (CIMIS) weather
station network was set up, a collaboration between
UC and the California Department of Water Resources
(CDWR). Today, there are more than 145 automated
CIMIS weather stations in distinct climate zones
throughout the state.
Most CIMIS stations record data on a collection
of variables needed to determine the reference evapo-
transpiration (ETo) at a given location, providing the
basis for local estimates of plant water needs. Data
from the CIMIS network also allowed UC to establish
crop coefficient (Kc) values for turfgrass (Gibeault et al.
1985) and plant factor (PF) values for other landscape
species (Hartin et al. 2018). Kc and PF values adjust
reference evapotranspiration for a particular landscape
species or mix of species (table 1). (See the glossary for
definitions of terms.)
A major finding by UC was that the health of most
landscape plants generally is not impaired when plants
are irrigated somewhat below their evapotranspiration
rate, a practice known as deficit irrigation. This knowl-
edge led to the identification, through replicated field
trials, of minimum irrigation requirements for several
species of landscape trees, shrubs and groundcovers
(Harivandi et al. 2009; Hartin et al. 1993; Oki et al.
2016; Pittenger et al. 2001; Pittenger et al. 2009; Reid
and Oki 2008, 2013, 2016).
 UC also has been a major developer and extender of
credible information on landscape water use through
peer-reviewed publications; presentations to industry
decision-makers at workshops, seminars, conferences
and field days; and the UC Agriculture and Natural
Resources (UC ANR) Master Gardener program.
This work has been instrumental in implementing the
multiple pieces of landscape water use legislation that
California has adopted since 1990.
AB 325: Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act (1990)
The Water Conservation in Landscaping Act of 1990
required CDWR to convene an advisory task force to
develop a Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance
(MWELO), which was adopted by the legislature in
1993 (State of California 2010). Central to MWELO was
the establishment of a maximum applied water allow-
ance (MAWA) based on the size of the landscape and
the climate zone.
The formula for calculating MAWA includes an
evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) based
on plant factor and irrigation efficiency. MWELO set
a maximum ETAF of 0.8 for new commercial and
residential landscapes irrigated with potable water.
To not exceed this standard, landscapes generally
needed to include plants with low and very low water
requirements and well-designed, functional irrigation
systems. Each jurisdiction is required to either adopt
MWELO or update its own landscape ordinance to be
equally effective in conserving water.
UC’s role
MWELO required that local jurisdictions categorize
plants based on water needs and climate zones. The
CDWR and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation provided fund-
ing for UC, under the direction of Emeritus UC Coop-
erative Extension (UCCE) Advisor Laurence Costello,
to oversee the development of such a database. WU-
COLS (Water Use Classification of Landscape Species)
categorized thousands of species of landscape plants in
six climate zones (North Central Valley, Central Valley,
South Coastal, South Inland Valley, High and Inter-
mediate Desert, and Low Desert) by their water use:
very low, low, medium, and high. The work relied on
the consensus of 36 experts from the public and private
sectors, including UC.
Since the inception of WUCOLS in 1992, additional
species have been added, with major updates in 1994,
1999 and 2014. Currently, WUCOLS includes more
than 3,500 plants (Costello and Jones 2014); and several
teams of UC scientists are engaged in assessing the
minimum water requirements of additional landscape Well-designed landscapes
species, to add them to the database. The WUCOLS with efficient irrigation
database greatly supplements information from the systems and drought-
resistant plants help ensure
water budget compliance.
Janet Hartin
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  27
 relatively small number of replicated field studies
(which are likely more valid but much lengthier and
more resource intensive) that have directly measured
the water use of individual landscape plant species.
AB 2717: California Urban Water
Conservation Council, stakeholders
(2004)
AB 2717 further refined landscape water conservation
legislation, using recommendations by a task force ap-
pointed by the California Urban Water Conservation
Council (now called the California Water Efficiency
Partnership, CalWEP). Task force members repre-
sented both public and private stakeholders. The final
report — Water Smart Landscapes for California: AB
2717 Landscape Task Force Findings, Recommenda-
tions, and Actions — was submitted to the Governor
and Legislature in December 2005 (CUWCC 2005). It
included 43 recommendations regarding best practices
to improve water use efficiency in new and existing ur-
ban landscapes. The top 12 recommendations are listed
in table 2.
UC’s role
UCCE’s Laurence Costello and Janet Hartin were
appointed to the task force along with 28 members
representing CDWR, the California State Water Re-
sources Control Board (SWRCB), the California Bay
Delta Authority, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation and
also the landscape, equipment manufacturing, build-
ing and construction industries, and urban water sup-
pliers, environmental advocacy and environmental
justice groups, the League of California Cities and the
California State Association of Counties. UCCE’s Lor-
ence Oki, Ali Harivandi (emeritus) and Robert Green
(currently at California Polytechnic State University,
Pomona) served as UC representatives on task force
working groups.
TABLE 2. Top 12 of the 43 recommendations made by the AB 2717 task force
1. Adopt water-conserving rate structures as defined by the task force
2. Reduce the ETAF (landscape water budget) in MWELO and review it every 10 years for
possible further reduction
3. Enforce and monitor compliance with local ordinances and MWELO
4. Require dedicated landscape meters
5. Promote the use of recycled water in urban landscapes
6. Require that local ordinances be at least as effective as MWELO
7. Increase the public’s awareness of the importance of landscape water use efficiency and
inspire them to action
8. Require smart controllers
9. Adopt and enforce statewide prohibitions on overspray and runoff
10. Provide training and certification opportunities to landscape and irrigation professionals
11. Support upgrading CIMIS
12. Adopt performance standards
28 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
A key topic of debate among task force members
was whether new landscapes should be required to con-
tain a minimum percentage of drought-resistant plants
or if adequate water savings could be realized based on
a water budget through a variety of other means. The
task force ultimately recommended the more flexible
latter approach, leaving plant selection to the property
owner.
UC task force members and other groups rep-
resented on the task force (such as the California
Landscape Contractors Association) supported exemp-
tions from MWELO’s mandated water budgets for
“special landscape areas.” These areas included recre-
ational turf (sports fields and parks) and areas irrigated
with recycled water. While synthetic turf is a viable wa-
ter-saving alternative to natural turf in some instances,
it can result in undesirable impacts such as high surface
temperatures in inland and desert areas (Williams and
Pulley 2003) and a greater number of player injuries
(McNitt et al. 2008).
Several UC academics and other authors, led by
Professor Emeritus Ken Tanji, compiled an extensive
review of irrigating landscapes with recycled water
in Southern California (Tanji et al. 2007) to reduce
reliance on potable water. While irrigating landscape
plants with recycled water is viable in many situa-
tions, salts tend to occur in higher concentrations in
recycled water. Leaching these salts below the root zone
to prevent plant damage can increase the net water re-
quirement above 1.0 ETAF, the current MWELO allo-
cation for special landscape areas. UC ANR specialists
(Haghverdi and Wu 2018) recently published a white
paper in support of increasing the ETAF above 1.0 for
areas irrigated with recycled water, to provide enough
water for leaching.
AB 1881: Water Conservation in
Landscaping Act (2006)
AB 1881 required CDWR to update MWELO by en-
acting many of the recommendations from the AB
2717 task force. These included decreasing ETAF from
0.8 to 0.7 for new non-single-family developments
with landscaped areas larger than 2,500 square feet
“pending a study conducted by UC supporting this
recommendation.” Local jurisdictions were required
by Jan. 1, 2010, to adopt the updated MWELO or adopt
a local ordinance that was at least as effective in con-
serving water.
UC’s role
Many of the recommendations developed by UC
and other members of the task force were enacted in
this bill. These included requiring selection of plants
adapted to specific sites while not prohibiting or requir-
ing specific plant species, encouraging the capture and
retention of stormwater on-site and the use of recycled
water, conducting on-site soil assessment and manage-
ment to prevent erosion and water runoff, applying
mulch around shrub and tree plantings, endorsing edu-
cation of water users on water conservation practices,
and encouraging economic incentives to promote water
conservation.
As importantly, the legislation encouraged land-
scape maintenance practices that lead to long-term
water conservation, such as routine irrigation system
audits, maintaining functional equipment, and mini-
mizing landscape irrigation overspray and runoff. To
that end, classes approved by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (US EPA) WaterSense program
that increase water use efficiency and decrease water
loss are regularly offered by the California Landscape
Contractors Association, the Qualified Water Efficient
Landscaper program, and Rain Bird. The classes
promote the incorporation of water-efficient irriga-
tion practices pertaining to irrigation system design,
installation and maintenance, and they often include
hands-on demonstrations of irrigation system audits.
Attendees gain knowledge of best practices that pro-
mote healthy water-conserving landscapes and earn
certificates of completion, which may provide career
advancement opportunities.
The bill also required the California Energy
Commission to regulate performance standards and
labeling requirements for irrigation equipment to
conserve energy and water. Examples of heightened
performance standards include requiring matched
precipitation rate sprinkler heads and other emission
devices; separate valves for tree and turf irrigation
whenever possible; and the use of original components
(or their equivalents) for sprinkler repair.
Two UC studies funded by CDWR
Between 2003 and 2015, UC received CDWR fund-
ing to conduct two studies to further refine provisions
within AB 1881. Both studies involved identifying
the relative importance and impact of specific best
practices — such as conducting sprinkler equipment
performance audits and scheduling irrigations based
on climate and plant water needs — that maintain the
health, performance and aesthetics of large-scale public
and private landscapes under reduced water budgets.
More than 70% of applied water was lost
The first study (Hartin and McArthur 2007) examined
major causes of water loss on 30 park, school district,
commercial and golf course sites in Los Angeles, Riv-
erside and San Bernardino counties. Results identified
that over 70% of applied water was lost, due mainly to
leaks, sunken heads, improper head tilt, unmatched
sprinklers, broken or worn parts, overspray, deflected
spray, and improper pressure and line or head place-
ment. The results validated the importance of including
best practices targeting irrigation system installation
and maintenance in water conservation legislation
recommended by the AB 2717 task force. Results of this
UC study were also included in a white paper published
by CDWR that stressed the importance of best prac-
tices in landscape water conservation.
Determining validity of reducing ETAF to 0.7
The second CDWR-funded study (led by California
Center for Urban Horticulture Director David Fujino
and UC ANR’s Loren Oki and Janet Hartin) was con-
ducted by us, the authors of this article, in response to
the legislative mandate for a UC study to determine the
impact of reducing ETAF from 0.8 to 0.7 (a 19% reduc-
tion) on plant health, function and appearance. We
monitored these factors and the water use of 30 large
landscapes (parks, school grounds, private grounds,
business parks and golf courses) with a wide variety of
species, microclimates, densities, irrigation schedules
and technologies in six climatic zones throughout the
state. Of the 30 sites, 21 performed adequately at 0.7
ETAF after implementing best practices that improved
irrigation system functioning and decreased water
loss (Hartin et al. 2017; Reid et al. 2017), legitimiz-
ing the proposed ETAF reduction, which took effect
Jan. 1, 2010.
Some of the greatest water savings in our
study came from improving distribution
uniformity and irrigation efficiency.
Some of the greatest water savings in our study
came from improving distribution uniformity and
irrigation efficiency. With those improvements, warm-
season turfgrasses met the 0.7 ETAF standard without
impairment to plant health, plant function or aes-
thetics. Warm-season turf species are more drought
resistant than cool-season species; cool-season species
did not meet the 0.7 ETAF standard since they are less
drought resistant than warm-season species.
All 24 shrub sites used considerably less water than
the turf sites, although 10 of them increased water use
the second year (ETAFs of 0.58 and 0.61, respectively)
due to malfunctioning valves and management turn-
over that led to a lack of continuity in site maintenance.
Results suggest that drip-irrigated and mulched areas
of plants with a mix of medium, low and very low water
needs and small areas of warm-season turf can perform
adequately at 0.7 ETAF.
The results of this study underscored the impor-
tance of the MWELO exemptions for special landscape
areas. In the absence of an exemption for recreational
turf, the options to meet the 0.7 ETAF include reducing
the acreage of cool-season turf species, replacing cool-
season species with warm-season species or irrigating
the landscape with nonpotable water.
Another goal of the CDWR-funded ETAF
study was to expand the number of plants listed in
WUCOLS. In addition to CDWR, many organiza-
tions supported this effort, including the Association
of Professional Landscape Designers, American
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  29
 Society of Irrigation Consultants, American Society
of Landscape Architects, California Association of
Nurseries and Garden Centers, and the California
Landscape Contractors Association. The most recent
WUCOLS update, WUCOLS IV (Costello and Jones
2014), includes the water use classification of an ad-
ditional 1,500 ornamental plants, bringing the total to
3,546 entries.
Analytical user data indicates high usage of
WUCOLS. During 2014 there were 7,300 users and over
130,000 page views, which increased to over 25,000
users and 538,000 page views during 2016. There was a
slight decrease in hits in 2017, perhaps due to an easing
of the drought-related water restrictions that had been
imposed by Governor Brown in 2015.
Outreach was a major component of the ETAF
study. Between 2013 and 2017, our team reached over
7,000 landscape industry professionals through pre-
sentations at workshops, symposia, field days and
conferences sponsored by UC and industry organiza-
tions such as the California Landscape Contractors
Association, Irrigation Association, Western Chapter of
the International Society of Arboriculture, California
Association of Pest Control Advisers, and water dis-
tricts. In addition, we authored several new UC ANR
publications: Sustainable Landscaping in California
(publication 8504), Keeping Plants Alive under
Drought or Water Restrictions (publication 8553) and
Drought Tip: Use of Graywater in Urban Landscapes in
California (publication 8536).
Irrigation system malfunctions resulted in more
water loss than could be saved by selecting
drought-resistant landscape species.
Irrigation system malfunctioning
In both UC studies, irrigation system malfunctions
resulted in more water loss than could be saved by se-
lecting drought-resistant landscape species (Hartin and
McArthur 2007; Hartin et al. 2017; Reid et al. 2017).
This underscores the importance of proper selection,
installation and maintenance of irrigation equipment.
Having a landscape contractor firm provide hands-on
training to demonstrate these recommended irrigation
management practices to site managers significantly
reduced water loss following the training in both UC
studies (Hartin and McArthur 2007; Hartin et al. 2017;
Reid et al. 2017).
Emergency drought legislation
2014
Beginning in 2014 (during our ETAF study), Gover-
nor Brown declared a state of emergency and signed
consecutive executive orders to conserve water during
the drought and beyond. On April 1, 2015, he imposed
statewide mandatory water reductions due to the
30 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
continuing drought. Important elements impacting
urban landscapes included a mandated 25% statewide
reduction in residential and commercial potable water
use through Feb. 28, 2016 (based on usage in 2013);
replacing 50 million square feet of turf with drought-
resistant plants; prohibiting the use of potable water
for irrigating turf on public street medians and on new
landscapes not irrigated with drip systems; requiring
urban water suppliers to enact pricing structures con-
sistent with meeting statewide water restrictions; and
requiring urban water suppliers to provide monthly
information on water usage, conservation and enforce-
ment permanently.
In addition, the 2015 order required CDWR to up-
date MWELO to increase water efficiency in new and
existing landscapes by using more efficient irrigation
systems, gray water, and stormwater capture and by
limiting turf. Using newer technologies such as preci-
sion irrigation hardware and software and renewable
energy–powered desalination were also encouraged.
On April 7, 2017, Governor Brown lifted the drought
emergency in all counties except four (Fresno, Kings,
Tuolumne and Tulare, due to their reliance on ground-
water) but maintained policies that support a core
commitment to long-term water conservation through
continued mandates on water use reporting, reducing
water loss and decreasing the reliance on potable water
for landscape irrigation.
Decrease in urban water use
While comprehensive results and impacts of public
policy legislation aimed at increasing landscape water
conservation have not been fully evaluated, recent
data shows a decrease in urban water use. Total urban
potable water use was 20% less in May 2017 than in
May 2013 (an estimated savings of 124,537 acre-feet per
month) (California Water Boards 2017). The U.S. Geo-
logical Survey reported a 17% reduction in urban water
use throughout California between 2010 and 2015,
driven in part by mandatory water restrictions in 2015
(Dieter and Maupin 2017). Perhaps more importantly,
per-capita water use has fallen steadily over the past
two decades, from 232 gallons per day in 1995 to 178
gallons per day in 2010, in response to long-term efforts
at conservation, including reduced amounts of water
applied to California landscapes (Mount and Hanak
2016). A blip occurred in 2015 when per-capita water
use fell to only 130 gallons per day under mandatory
conservation.
Input from many organizations and stakeholders
impacted landscape water use policy and decreased
water loss. While UC did provide policymakers with
credible and objective research-based information,
implementing MWELO and adjusting MAWA required
a collaborative effort by a wide variety of groups and
individuals vested in maintaining healthy, functional
landscapes that perform acceptably under water
reductions.
New landscape water use 0.75 for overhead sprinkler devices) used in the current
Top, UCCE advisor
legislation MWELO. Karrie Reid (center) with
Bijoor et al. (2014) found that smart irrigation sys- Green Gardener training
In May 2018, Governor Brown signed two bills (SB 606 tems were more effective at reducing water loss than participants in San
and AB 1668) consistent with his 2017 Making Water irrigation systems operated by conventional timers Joaquin County. Bottom,
Conservation a California Way of Life proposal. SB 606 and that the difference exceeded water savings realized a catchment can test
focuses on landscape water use and AB 1668 focuses from selecting a warm-season (more water-conserving) measures irrigation system
precipitation rate and
on rural and agricultural water use. Together they turf species over a cool-season species. Reid and Oki
distribution uniformity.
establish water use objectives and reporting standards (2016) continue to screen a wide variety of landscape Performing regular
for indoor and outdoor residential and commercial plants for their drought resistance to expand the palette irrigation audits is a best
use; require SWRCB and CDWR to adopt long-term of California-friendly landscape plants. Work by their practice recommended by
standards for efficient water use; update urban water team has already led to the identification of hundreds UC researchers involved
management plans to include the reliability of the water of drought-resistant plants included in MWELO. in water conservation
research and extension.
supplies and strategies for meeting current and future
water needs; require urban water suppliers to conduct a
water supply and demand assessment and make water
shortage contingency plans available to customers; and
require water suppliers to declare emergency measures
to ensure sufficient water for human consumption,
sanitation and fire protection.
AB 2371 was enacted on Sept. 28, 2018. It continues
to enforce many current landscape water conservation
practices in and out of drought, including hydrozon-
ing, water budgeting, stormwater collection, use of
recycled water and irrigation equipment maintenance.
In addition, it requires the Contractors State License
Board to update the C-27 landscape contractors’ exam
as needed to include questions on new and emerging
landscape irrigation efficiency practices; allows poten-
tial purchasers of housing units containing in-ground
landscape irrigation systems to require irrigation sys-
tem inspections; and requires the formation of a work-
ing group to examine and consider updating current

Kathy Ikeda
consumer information on landscape water use. It also
requires CDWR, following a public hearing every 3
years, to update MWELO or determine that an update
is not needed and consider revising and updating the
WUCOLS database.

UC continues policy role,

advances science
UC continues to play a major role in providing objec-
tive information to policymakers as they formulate
and update legislation on water conservation in com-
mercial and residential landscapes. UC also continues
to advance the science to conserve water and help en-
sure that legislative targets are met. Due to continued
improvements in the efficiency of sprinkler and drip
irrigation systems (which can decrease water loss),
ETAF was further reduced in 2015 from 0.7 to 0.55 for
residential landscapes (a reduction of 21%) and from
0.7 to 0.45 for commercial landscapes (a reduction of
35%). Conservation on this scale will rely heavily on
implementing best practices that decrease water loss,
identifying new species of drought-resistant landscape
plants and improving irrigation system performance.
UC ANR

In practice, many irrigation systems fall far short of

the irrigation efficiencies (0.81 for drip devices and

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  31
 UC ANR Specialist Amir Haghverdi is leading a
project to further define water requirements of turf
under deficit irrigation and reclaimed water regimes;
evaluate the performance of soil moisture–sensing and
ET-based smart landscape irrigation technologies on
water use effectiveness under deficit irrigation; and
monitor turf responses to multiple levels of water stress
using multispectral (measures reflectance over a wide
range of wavelengths) and thermal remote-sensing
techniques.
David Fujino and the Western Center
for Agricultural Equipment established the
SmartLandscape project at UC Davis in collabora-
tion with more than 20 organizations and companies.
SmartLandscape provides workshops and on-site train-
ing for landscapers and students on new water-saving
technologies. Several UC faculty, specialists and advi-
sors (Alison Berry, A. James Downer, Janet Hartin,
Darren Haver, Karrie Reid and Igor Lacan) are involved
in various projects throughout the state alone and in
cooperation with the U.S. Forest Service and other
groups to determine the long-term durability of a wide
variety of underused landscape trees under warmer,
drier conditions due to climate change (Hanak and
Lund 2012) and urban heat islands. c
J.S. Hartin is UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Area Environmental
Horticulture Advisor in San Bernardino, Los Angeles and Riverside
counties; L.R. Oki is UCCE Environmental Horticulture Specialist
in the Department of Plant Sciences, UC Davis; D.W. Fujino is
Director of the California Center for Urban Horticulture, UC Davis;
K. Reid is UCCE Environmental Horticulture Advisor in San Joaquin
County; C.A. Ingels was UCCE Horticulture Advisor in Sacramento
County; D.L. Haver is County Director and UCCE Water Resources/
Water Quality Advisor, Orange County, and Director, South Coast
Research and Extension Center, Irvine; and W.N. Baker is Principal,
William Baker & Associates, Temecula.
Authors received funding from California Department of Water
Resources, Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, and Metropolitan
Water District of Southern California.
Authors acknowledge the assistance and participation of
numerous public and private landscape clientele and myriad
partnering agencies and organizations over the course of
these studies.

References
Bijoor NS, Pataki DE, Haver D,
Famiglietti JS. 2014. A compara-
tive study of the water budget
of lawns under three manage-
ment scenarios. Urban Ecosyst
17:1095–117. https://escholar-
ship.org/Uc/Item/16b5x8pz
California Water Boards. 2017.
Fact Sheet: May 2017 Statewide
Conservation Data. www.wa-
terboards.ca.gov/water_issues/
programs/conservation_portal/
docs/2017jul/fs070517_may_
conservation.pdf
Costello LR, Jones KS. 2014. WU-
COLS IV: Water Use Classification
of Landscape Species. California
Center for Urban Horticulture,
UC Davis. http://ucanr.edu/
sites/WUCOLS/
[CUWCC] California Urban Water
Conservation Council. 2005.
Water Smart Landscapes for
California: AB 2717 Landscape
Task Force Findings, Recom-
mendations, and Actions. www.
water.ca.gov/LegacyFiles/
wateruseefficiency/land-
scapeordinance/Model-Water-
Efficient-Landscape-Ordinance/
Documents-Relied-Upon/
Water_%20Smart_%20Land-
scapes_%20AB2717.pdf
Dieter CA, Maupin MA. 2017.
Public supply and domes-
tic water use in the United
States, 2015. USGS Open-File
Report 2017-1131. https://doi.
org/10.3133/ofr20171131
Gibeault VA, Meyer JL, Youngner
VB, Cockerham ST. 1985. Irriga-
tion of turfgrass below replace-
ment of evapotranspiration as
a means of water conservation:
Performance of commonly used
turfgrasses. In: Proc 5th Inter
Turfgrass Res Conf. Paris, France.
p 347–56.
Haghverdi A, Wu L. 2018. Ac-
counting for Salinity Leaching
in the Application of Recycled
Water for Landscape Irrigation.
Southern California Salinity
Coalition. www.socalsalinity.
org/pdfs/SCSC-WACA-Salinity-
Leaching-White-Paper-
Feb-2018.pdf
Hanak E, Davis M. 2006. Lawns
and Water Demand in Califor-
nia. Public Policy Institute of
California, San Francisco. www.
ppic.org/content/pubs/cep/
EP_706EHEP.pdf
Hanak E, Lund J. 2012. Adapting
California’s water management
to climate change. Climatic
Change 111(1):17–44. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-
0241-3
Harivandi A, Baird J, Hartin J, et
al. 2009. Managing Turfgrasses
during Drought. UC ANR Pub
8395. Oakland, CA: UC ANR.
http://anrcatalog.ucanr.edu/
Details.aspx?itemNo=8395
Hartin JS, Fujino DW, Oki LR,
et al. 2018. Water requirement
of landscape plants studies
conducted by the University of
California researchers. HortTech-
nology 28(4):422–6.
Hartin J, McArthur K. 2007. Con-
serving Water and Improving
Plant Health in Large Southern
California Landscapes. Final
Report. 2004 Proposition 50 Wa-
ter Use Efficiency Grant. Grant
No. 4600004211, CA Dept. of
Water Resources (DWR) Office
of Water Use Efficiency. Sacra-
mento, CA.
Hartin JS, Meyer JL, Gibeault
VA. 1993. Minimum Irrigation
Requirements of Four Species
of Landscape Trees. Research
Report. UC ANR South Coast
Field Station (now South Coast
Research and Extension Center),
Irvine, CA. 13 p.
Hartin J, Oki L, Fujino D, et
al. 2017. Evapotranspiration
Adjustment Factor Study: Final
Project Report. DWR Office of
Water Use Efficiency, Sacra-
mento, CA.
Kjelgren R, Rupp L, Kilgren D.
2000. Water conservation in
urban landscapes. HortScience
35:1037–40.
McNitt AS, Petrunak DM, Se-
rensits TJ. 2008. Temperature
amelioration of synthetic turf
surfaces through irrigation.
Acta Hortic 783:573–81. https://
doi.org/10.17660/ActaHor-
tic.2008.783.59
Mount J, Hanak E. 2016. Just the
Facts: Water Use in California.
Public Policy Institute of Cali-
fornia, San Francisco, CA. www.
ppic.org/publication/water-use-
in-california/
Nouri H, Glenn EP, Beecham S,
et al. 2016. Comparing three
approaches of evapotranspira-
tion estimation in mixed urban
vegetation: Field-based, remote
sensing-based and observa-
tional-based methods. Remote
Sens 8(6):492.
Oki LR, Reid K, Sisneroz J. 2016.
Landscape plant irrigation tri-
als. Acta Hortic 1140:145–50.
doi:10.17660/ActaHor-
tic.2016.1140.31
Pittenger D, Downer AJ, Hodel
D, Mochizuki M. 2009. Estimat-
ing water needs of landscape
palms in Mediterranean
climates. HortTechnology
19(4):70–4.
Pittenger DR, Shaw DA, Hodel
DR, Holt DB. 2001. Responses
of landscape groundcovers to
minimum irrigation. J Environ
Hortic 19(2):78–84.
Reid K, Fujino D, Oki L, et al.
2017. Maintaining urban land-
scape health and services on
reduced irrigation: A multi-site
study in best management
practices. In: Proc ISHS 1st Int
Sym Greener Cities for More Ef-
ficient Ecosystem Services in a
Climate Changing World, Sept.
12–15, 2017. Bologna, Italy.
Reid SK, Oki LR. 2008. Field tri-
als identify more native plants
suited to urban landscapes. Calif
Agr 62(3):97–104. https://doi.
org/10.3733/ca.v062n03p97
Reid K, Oki L. 2013. Irrigation
and climate zone trials of peren-
nial plants for sustainable land-
scapes. Acta Hortic 980:95–102.
https://doi.org/10.17660/Acta-
Hortic.2013.980.12
Reid K, Oki LR. 2016. Evaluation
of ornamental plant perfor-
mance on four deficit irrigation
levels: Working with industry
to promote sustainable plant
choices for summer-dry re-
gions. Acta Hortic 1112:155–62.
https://doi.org/10.17660/Acta-
Hortic.2016.1112.22
St. Hilaire R, Arnold M, Wilker-
son DC, et al. 2008. Efficient
water use in residential urban
landscapes. HortScience
43:2081–92.
State of California. 2010. Model
Water Efficient Landscape Or-
dinance. Department of Water
Resources Office of Water Use
Efficiency. www.water.ca.gov/
wateruseefficiency/docs/
MWELO09-10-09.pdf
Tanji K, Grattan S, Grieve C, et al.
2007. Salt Management Guide
for Landscape Irrigation with
Recycled Water in Coastal South-
ern California: A Comprehensive
Literature Review. Southern
California Salinity Coalition. 320
p. http://salinitymanagement.
com/Literature_Review.pdf
Williams CF, Pulley GE. 2003.
Synthetic surface heat studies.
College of Agricultural, Con-
sumer and Environmental Sci-
ences, NMSU. http://cahe.nmsu.
edu/programs/turf/documents/
brigham-young-study.pdf

32 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

RESEARCH ARTICLE
Stream flow modeling tools inform
environmental water policy in California
The models have been used to assess patterns of stream flow modification, inform California’s
Cannabis Cultivation Policy and highlight shortcomings in the state’s water accounting.
by Theodore E. Grantham, Julie K. H. Zimmerman, Jennifer K. Carah and Jeanette K. Howard
O
ver the past century, California has built an
extraordinarily complex water management
system with hundreds of dams and a vast
distribution network that spans the state. This system
generates electricity, provides flood protection, delivers
reliable water supplies to 40 million people and sup-
ports one of the most productive agricultural regions in
the world. Yet development of the state’s water manage-
ment system has come at a price. Damming waterways,
diverting water from rivers and streams and altering
natural flow patterns have transformed the state’s
freshwater ecosystems, leading to habitat degrada-
tion, declines of freshwater species and loss of services
that river ecosystems provide, including high-quality
drinking water, fishing and recreational opportunities,
and cultural and aesthetic values.
The state aims to accommodate human water
needs while maintaining sufficient stream flow for
the environment. To support this mission, scientists
from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) and UC have developed new tech-
niques and tools that are advancing sustainable water
Online: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0039
Abstract
Management of California’s vast water distribution network, involving
hundreds of dams and diversions from rivers and streams, provides
water to 40 million people and supports a globally prominent
agricultural sector, but it has come at a price to local freshwater
ecosystems. An essential first step in developing policies that effectively
balance human and ecosystem needs is understanding natural stream
flow patterns and the role stream flow plays in supporting ecosystem
health. We have developed a machine-learning modeling technique
that predicts natural stream flows in California’s rivers and streams. The
technique has been used to assess patterns of stream flow modification,
evaluate statewide water rights allocations and establish environmental
flow thresholds below which water diversions are prohibited. Our
work has informed the statewide Cannabis Cultivation Policy and
influenced decision-making in more subtle ways, such as by highlighting
shortcomings in the state’s water accounting system and building
support for needed reforms. Tools and techniques that make use of
long-term environmental monitoring data and modern computing
power — such as the models described here — can help inform policies
seeking to protect the environment while satisfying the demands of
California’s growing population.
A modeling technique
that predicts natural
stream flows can help
California develop
sustainable water
management strategies.
This photo of Pine Flat
Dam on the Kings River
shows a USGS gauge
below the dam.
Theodore E. Grantham
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  33
 management in California. At the center of these new
advances is the need to understand the natural ebbs
and flows in the state’s rivers and streams.
Natural patterns in stream flow are characterized by
seasonal and annual variation in timing (when certain
flows occur), magnitude (how much flow), duration
(how long flows of certain levels persist) and frequency
(how often flows of certain levels occur). California’s
native freshwater species are highly adapted to these
seasonally dynamic changes in stream flows. For exam-
ple, salmon migration is triggered by pulses of stream
flow that follow winter’s first storms, reproduction of
foothill yellow-legged frogs is synchronized with the
predictable spring snowmelt in the Sierra Nevada, and
many native fish breed on seasonally inundated flood-
plains, where juveniles take advantage of productive,
slow-moving waters to feed and grow.
When rivers are modified by dams, diversions and
other activities, flows no longer behave in ways that
support native species, contributing to population
declines and ultimate extinction. Thus, understanding
natural stream flow patterns and the role they play in
supporting ecosystem health is an essential first step
for developing management strategies that balance hu-
man and ecosystem needs.
Unfortunately, our ability to assess alteration of
natural stream flow patterns, and the ecosystem conse-
quences, is hindered by the absence of stream flow data.
California’s stream flow gauging network offers only
a limited perspective on how much water is moving
through our state’s rivers. In fact, it’s been estimated
that 86% of California’s significant rivers and streams
are poorly gauged and nearly half of the state’s historic
gauges have been taken offline due to lack of funding
(TNC 2018a). Of those gauges that are still in opera-
tion, most are located on rivers that are highly modified
by human activities and gauge records prior to impacts
are limited. These limitations can be partially overcome
with modeling approaches to predict the attributes
of natural stream flow expected in the absence of hu-
man influence. The predictions can then be compared
to measured stream flow at gauging locations, or they
can be used to estimate natural flow conditions in un-
gauged streams.

(A) (B)
Reference sites

Climate Climate
Topography Topography
Soils Soils
Geology Geology
Model

flowobs flowobs

(C) (D)
Watersheds of interest

flowpred

Climate
Model
Topography
Soils flowpred
Geology

If site is gauged
flowobs flowobs

FIG. 1. Our flow modeling approach: (A) Reference flow gauges, located on streams with minimal upstream human influence, are identified and flow
observations (flowobs) and information on physical watershed characteristics compiled in a database. (B) Models are then developed that relate physical
watershed characteristics to observed flows (e.g., September mean monthly flow), using data from all reference gauges in the region. (C) Once the
models are “trained,” they can be used to make predictions of expected natural flows (flowpred) at any location for which the same watershed variables
are calculated. (D) If predictions are made at altered (nonreference) gauged sites, comparisons between observed values and predicted values can be
made to estimate the degree to which flows have been altered from natural expected conditions.

34 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

 (A) (B) (C)
Developing stream flow models

Mean monthly flows

In 2010, Carlisle et al. (2010) developed a modeling
technique to predict natural attributes (such as mag-
nitude, duration, frequency, timing and variability)
of stream flow and assessed stream flow alteration at
gauges throughout the United States (Carlisle et al.
2011). Soon after, UC and TNC scientists began using
the approach to expand and further refine the tech-
nique for applications in California (e.g., Grantham et
al. 2014; Zimmerman et al. 2018). (D) (E) (F)
The models have evolved over time, but all rely on

Annual maximum flows

stream flow monitoring data from USGS gauges located
on streams with minimal influence from upstream
human activities. These are referred to as reference
gauges. Some reference gauge data come from historical
measurements made before significant modification of
flows occurred, such as the years prior to the building
of a dam. The remaining data are from reference gauges
located in California watersheds that remain mini-
mally altered by human influence. (G) (H) (I)
Once reference gauges were identified and flow
Annual minimum flows

records obtained from the USGS web-based retrieval

system, we used geographic information systems to
characterize the watersheds above each reference gauge
based on their physical attributes, such as topography,
geology and soils (Falcone et al. 2010). We also assem-
bled monthly precipitation and temperature climate
data for the past 65 years for each watershed.
The watershed variables and climate data were
then compiled and statistically evaluated in relation
Depletion Inflation
to observed flow conditions at the reference sites us- Infrequent Regular Frequent Infrequent Regular Frequent No alteration recorded
ing a machine-learning approach (Cutler et al. 2007) Moderate Moderate Hydrologic regions
High High
that uses the power of modern computers to search for Severe Severe
predictive relationships in large data sets. An advan-
tage of machine-learning techniques is the ability to FIG. 2. Patterns of flow
make predictions from multiple model iterations (i.e., recorded the frequency and degree to which flows were alteration magnitude
and frequency for mean
alternate versions of the model trained with different either higher (inflated) or lower (depleted) than natural
monthly (A–C), annual
subsets of the data), which tends to increase accuracy. expected levels, while considering the uncertainty of maximum (D–F) and
Once we had developed and evaluated models using model predictions. annual minimum (G–I)
observed stream flow data from reference gauges, we We found evidence of widespread stream flow mod- flows. Alteration frequency
could predict stream flow attributes for any portion of ification in California (fig. 2). The vast majority (95%) is shown by symbol
a stream or river in California for which the climate of sites experienced at least 1 month of modified flows size and magnitude by
and watershed characteristics were known (fig. 1). over the past 20 years and many sites (11%) were modi- color intensity for flow
depletion (A, D, G) and
Additional technical details of the modeling approach fied most of the time (≥ 66% of months over the period
inflation (B, E, H). Gauge
are provided in Carlisle et al. 2016 and Zimmerman et of record). When stream flows were modified, the mag- locations with no alteration
al. 2018. nitude of modification tended to be high. On average, recorded are also shown
inflated stream flows were 10 times higher than natural (C, F, I). Reproduced from
Patterns of stream flow expected levels, whereas depleted stream flows were Zimmerman et al. (2018).
20% of natural expected levels.
modification Overall, stream flow modification in California
In a study led by Zimmerman et al. (2018), we applied reflects a loss of natural seasonal variability by shifting
the machine-learning technique to assess patterns of water from the wet season to the dry season and from
stream flow modification in California. We did this wet areas of the state to the drier south. Stream flow in-
by predicting natural monthly flows at 540 streams flation was most common in dry summer months and
throughout California with long-term USGS gauging for annual minimum flows. Conversely, flow depletion
stations and comparing those predictions with ob- was most common in winter and spring months and
served conditions. We then assessed how observed flow for annual maximum flows. Unaltered sites tended to
conditions at the gauges deviated from predictions and occur in places with relatively low population density

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  35

By estimating natural
river flows and the
degree to which they are
modified, the authors'
modeling technique
enables scientists to assess
“ecological flow” needs, or
the river flows necessary
to sustain ecological
functions, species and
habitats. This includes
the amount needed to
maintain adult salmon
passage and spawning and
winter rearing conditions
for juvenile salmon.
36 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
and water management infrastructure, such as the
North Coast, whereas greater magnitude and frequency
of alteration was seen in rivers that feed the massive
water infrastructure in the Central Valley and the pop-
ulated Central Coast and South Coast regions.
A key water management goal in California is to
manage river flows to support native freshwater biodi-
versity. By estimating natural river flows and the degree
to which they are modified, our work provides a foun-
dation for assessing “ecological flow” needs, or the river
flows necessary to sustain ecological functions, species
and habitats. Assessments of ecological flow needs are
generally performed at stream reach to regional scales
(Poff et al. 2010), but rarely for an area as large and geo-
graphically complex as California.
In 2017, a technical team that includes scientists
from UC, TNC, USGS, California Trout, Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project and Utah
State University began developing a statewide approach
for assessing ecological flows. The team has identified
a set of ecologically relevant stream flow attributes
for California streams that reflect knowledge of spe-
cific flow requirements for key freshwater species and
habitats (Yarnell et al. 2015). Our modeling technique
(previously used to predict monthly and annual mini-
mum and maximum flows) is now being extended
to predict natural expectations for these new stream
flow attributes.
Model predictions of the natural range of variability
for these ecologically relevant stream flow attributes
will provide the basis for setting initial ecological
flow criteria for all streams and rivers in California by
the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB)
and other natural resource agencies. These ecologi-
cal flow criteria will be based on unimpaired hydro-
logic conditions, but they can be refined in locations
where management and ecological objectives require
a more detailed approach. For example, refined ap-
proaches would likely be required in rivers that must
be managed for species listed under the Endangered
Species Act or in rivers where substantial flow and
physical habitat alteration makes reference hydrology
less relevant for setting ecological flow criteria, such
as in the Central Valley or in populated watersheds of
coastal California.
Our technical team also was involved in establish-
ing the California Environmental Flows Workgroup
of the California Water Quality Monitoring Council
(State of California 2018). The mission of the
Workgroup is to advance the science of ecological
flows assessment and to provide guidance to natural
resource management agencies charged with balancing
environmental water needs with consumptive uses. The
Workgroup is comprised of representatives from state
and federal agencies, tribes, and nongovernmental or-
ganizations involved in the management of ecological
flows. It serves as a forum to facilitate communication
between science and policy development and to provide
a common vision for the use of tools and science-based
information to support decision-making in the evalua-
tion of ecological flow needs and allocation of water for
the environment.
Water accounting reforms
The modeling technique described above has also been
used to evaluate statewide water allocations. Grantham
and Viers (2014) analyzed California’s water rights
database to evaluate where and to what extent water
has been allocated to human uses relative to natural
supplies. They calculated the maximum annual vol-
ume of water that could be legally diverted according
to the face value of all appropriative water rights in
the SWRCB’s water rights database. Water rights were
distributed according to their location of diversion, and
the permitted diversion volumes were aggregated at the
watershed scale to estimate a maximum water demand
for each of the state’s watersheds. These permitted
Carson Jeffres
water diversion volumes were compared with mod-
eled predictions of average annual supplies to estimate
the degree of appropriation of surface water resources
throughout the state (fig. 3).
The study found that appropriative water rights
exceed average supplies in more than half of the state’s
large river basins, including most of the major wa-
tersheds draining to the Central Valley, such as the
Sacramento, Feather, Yuba, American, Mokelumne,
Tuolumne, Merced and Kern rivers. In the San Joaquin
River, appropriative water rights were eight times the
volume of estimated natural water supplies (Grantham
and Viers 2014). The volume of water rights alloca-
tions would be much higher if pre-1914 and riparian
water rights had been included, but these data were
not available at the time. The analysis also revealed
that water rights allocations poorly represent actual
water use by water rights holders. For example, com-
parisons of allocations with water use suggest that in
most of California only a fraction of claimed water is
being used.
In a well-functioning water rights system where
allocations are closely tracked and verified, an excess
of water rights relative to supplies is not necessarily
a problem. During water shortages, holders of junior
appropriative rights would be required to curtail their
water use. When water is abundant, most water rights
holders should be able to fully exercise their claims.
Uncertainty in when, how and where water is being
used, however, threatens the security of water rights —
particularly when water is substantially overallocated
relative to natural supplies. During the 2012–2016
drought, for example, the SWRCB issued notices of
curtailment to water rights holders to protect endan-
gered fish species within priority watersheds. Less con-
troversial targeted cutbacks to individuals might have
been sufficient if the agency had more accurate infor-
mation on how water rights were being exercised.
As the 2012–2016 drought progressed, flaws in the
state’s accounting system for tracking water rights be-
came more apparent. This study, together with other
policy reports (e.g., Escriva-Bou et al. 2016), articulated
the need for water accounting reforms, raised public
awareness and helped to mobilize support for new
legislation in 2015 (Senate Bill 88), which significantly
increased water-use monitoring and reporting require-
ments for water rights holders. The new regulations
also extended reporting requirements to senior water
rights holders (pre-1914 appropriative and riparian
water rights holders), which are among the largest indi-
vidual water users in the state.
Flow thresholds for cannabis water
diversions
The legalization of recreational cannabis in 2016 with
passage of State Proposition 64 prompted state agencies
to develop new policies to regulate the production, dis-
tribution and use of the plant. For example, California
Senate Bill 837 directed the SWRCB to establish a new
regulatory program to address potential water quality
and quantity issues related to cannabis cultivation.
The subsequently enacted California Water Code
Section 13149 in 2016 obliged the SWRCB, in con-
sultation with the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife, to develop both interim and long-term prin-
ciples and guidelines for water diversion and water
quality in cannabis cultivation. As a result, in 2017,
the SWRCB adopted the Cannabis Cultivation Policy:
Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation
(SWRCB 2017). The Cannabis Cultivation Policy’s goal
is to provide a framework to regulate the diversion of
water and waste discharge associated with cannabis
cultivation such that it does not negatively affect fresh-
water habitats and water quality.
A key element of the Cannabis Cultivation Policy
is the establishment of environmental flow thresholds,
below which diversions for cannabis irrigation are
prohibited (fig. 4). During the dry season (April 1 to
Oct. 31), no surface water diversions are permitted for
Proportion runoff allocated
0
0–0.1
0.11–0.5
0.51–1.0
40° N 1.01–10
Mean annual runoff (millions m3)
< 100
101–500
501–1,000
1,001–5,000
> 5,000
35° N
120° W 115° W
FIG. 3. Cumulative volumetric allocations of water rights relative to mean annual runoff
for all major watersheds in California. The width of the lines corresponds to the mean
annual runoff (in millions of cubic meters). Reproduced from Grantham and Viers (2014).
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  37
 cannabis cultivation. Diversions from surface water
Navarro River Cannabis Flow Requirements sources to off-stream storage are allowed between
Nov. 1 and March 31. However, water may only be ex-
10,000 tracted from streams when flow exceeds the amount
needed to maintain adult salmon passage and spawn-
ing and winter rearing conditions for juvenile salmon.
8,000 Environmental flow requirements for the winter diver-
sion season were determined by an approach known
Flow (cubic feet per second)

as the Tessmann Method (Tessmann 1979), which

6,000
uses proportions of historical mean annual and mean
monthly natural flows to set protective thresholds.
Because flows are not measured continuously in
most streams in California (TNC 2018a), including
4,000
at most points of diversion, the Cannabis Cultivation
Policy instead relies on using the predictions of natu-
ral flows from the models described above. Predicted
2,000 natural mean monthly and annual flows are used by
the SWRCB at compliance gauge points to calculate
the Tessmann thresholds. Cannabis cultivators seeking
0 a Cannabis Small Irrigation Use Registration permit
Dec Dec Dec Dec Dec Jan Jan Jan Jan Feb Feb Feb Feb Mar Mar Mar Mar Mar from the SWRCB are assigned a compliance gauge
1 8 15 22 29 5 12 19 26 2 9 16 23 2 9 16 23 30
near their operation and can legally divert water only
Daily average flow (cfs) Cannabis Policy numeric requirements (cfs)
when flows recorded at the gauge meet or exceed the
Tessmann thresholds during the diversion season
FIG. 4. Daily average flow, in cubic feet per second, for 2011 for the Navarro River at a
USGS gauge (USGS 11468000 Navarro R NR Navarro CA) plotted against the Cannabis (fig. 4).
Cultivation Policy numeric requirements for diversion. For dates where there are flows
above the orange line (e.g., March 1 to 31), diversion would be allowed. For dates Next steps
where there are no flows above the orange line (e.g., Jan. 6 to Feb. 14), no diversion for
cannabis cultivation would be allowed, to protect flows for salmonid passage, spawning The motivation for developing natural stream flow
and rearing. models and data rests on the premise that rivers and
streams can be managed to preserve features of natu-
ral stream flow patterns critical to biological systems
while still providing benefits to human society (e.g.,
water supply and hydroelectric power) (Arthington et
al. 2006; Poff et al. 2010). For any stream of interest,
balancing the needs of humans and nature requires an
understanding of its natural flows, whether observed
conditions are modified relative to natural patterns and
what degree of modification harms its health.
As noted in the examples above, this work has both
direct and indirect implications for policy and deci-
sion-making. A database of natural stream flows de-
veloped by machine-learning models was used to help
define cannabis policy to set minimum flow targets — a
direct application of the technique. However, this work
also influenced policy and decision-making in more
subtle ways, including building awareness of shortcom-
ings in the state’s water rights accounting system. This
Scott Bauer, California Department of Fish and Wildlife

form of engagement with government agencies and the

broader public helps define the agenda early in the pol-
icy-making process (Jones 1984), although quantifying
the degree to which our research contributed to policy

The SWRCB’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy establishes

regulations and guidelines for water use by cannabis
farms, including the timing, volume and rate of water
diversions from rivers and streams. Environmental flow
thresholds are based on the modeled predictions of
natural flows at the nearest USGS gauge.

38 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

outcomes such as SB 88 is difficult. The future impact of
our work on environmental flow management remains
unclear, but early engagement with state and federal
agencies through the Environmental Flows Workgroup
suggests that our flow modeling tools and data will
have an important role in future policy development.
Recognizing there are likely other applications for
our modeling tools, we have been working to make the
data available to the public. Model predictions have
now been generated for every stream in California,
including values of mean monthly, maximum and
minimum monthly flows and confidence intervals for
California’s 139,912 stream segments in the National
Hydrography Database (Horizon Systems 2015). The
dataset is being hosted by The Nature Conservancy at
rivers.codefornature.org, where it can be accessed and
downloaded through an application programming
interface (API). A more dynamic spatial mapping tool
has been developed to explore the data in individual
rivers, watersheds or regions. An online interactive
visualization tool is also available that allows a user to
select one or several stream gauges and generate the
corresponding hydrograph of observed and expected
monthly flows (TNC 2018b).
An immediate next step for this project is to ex-
pand the natural flows dataset to include predictions
of additional stream flow attributes that are relevant to
environmental water management. This will support
the Environmental Flows Workgroup’s goal of defining
ecological flow criteria in all rivers and streams of the
state and can help inform a variety of programs includ-
ing, for example, water transactions and stream flow
enhancement programs.
Other direct applications of the natural flows data
may be in hydropower project relicensing, which
requires consideration of environmental flow needs.
In addition, under the Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA), groundwater sustainability
agencies (GSAs) are required to avoid undesirable re-
sults including depletions
of interconnected surface Statewide environmental flow
water that have significant
and unreasonable adverse criteria may help to define
impacts on beneficial management targets required for
uses of the surface water.
Because environmental SGMA implementation.
flow criteria have not been
established for most streams in California, GSAs are
rightfully confused as to the standards they are ex-
pected to meet. Statewide environmental flow criteria
may help to define management targets required for
SGMA implementation.
Looking to the future, society will continue to face
challenges in balancing environmental protections
with the demands of a growing population. Tools that
make use of long-term monitoring data and modern
computing power, such as the models described here,
can help inform policy and management intended to
achieve this balance. c
T.E. Grantham is Assistant Cooperative Extension Specialist,
Department of Environmental Science, Policy, and Management,
UC Berkeley; J.K.H. Zimmerman is Lead Scientist for Freshwater
at The Nature Conservancy; J.K. Carah is Senior Scientist and J.K.
Howard is Director of Science for The Nature Conservancy’s Water
Program in California.

References
Arthington AH, Bunn SE, Poff
NL, et al. 2006. The challenge of
providing environmental flow
rules to sustain river ecosys-
tems. Ecol Appl 16:1311–8.
Carlisle DM, Falcone J, Wolock
DM, et al. 2010. Predicting the
natural flow regime: Models for
assessing hydrological altera-
tion in streams. River Res Appl
26:118–36.
Carlisle DM, Wolock DM, How-
ard JK, et al. 2016. Estimating
Natural Monthly Streamflows
in California and the Likelihood
of Anthropogenic Modification.
Open-File Report 2016-1189, US
Geological Survey, Reston, VA.
Carlisle DM, Wolock DM,
Meador MR. 2011. Alteration
of streamflow magnitudes
and potential ecological con-
sequences: A multiregional
assessment. Front Ecol Environ
9:264–70.
Cutler DR, Edwards TC, Beard
KH, et al. 2007. Random forests
for classification in ecology.
Ecology 88:2783–92.
Escriva-Bou A, McCann H, Hanak
E, et al. 2016. Accounting for
California’s Water. Report No.
R_716EHR, Public Policy Insti-
tute of California Water Policy
Center, San Francisco, CA.
Falcone JA, Carlisle DM, Wolock
DM, et al. 2010. GAGES: A
stream gage database for evalu-
ating natural and altered flow
conditions in the conterminous
United States. Ecology 91:621.
Grantham TE, Viers JH. 2014. 100
years of California’s water rights
system: Patterns, trends and
uncertainty. Environ Res Lett
9:084012.
Grantham TE, Viers JH, Moyle PB.
2014. Systematic screening of
dams for environmental flow as-
sessment and implementation.
BioScience 64:1006–18.
Horizon Systems. 2015. National
Hydrography Dataset Plus. Hori-
zon Systems Corporation. www.
horizon-systems.com/nhdplus/
(accessed June 1, 2015).
Jones CO. 1984. An Introduction
to the Study of Public Policy. Bel-
mont, CA: Wadsworth.
Poff NL, Richter BD, Arthington
AH, et al. 2010. The ecological
limits of hydrologic alteration
(ELOHA): A new framework for
developing regional environ-
mental flow standards. Freshwa-
ter Biol 55:147–70.
State of California. 2018. Cali-
fornia Water Quality Monitor-
ing Council Environmental
Flows Workgroup. https://
mywaterquality.ca.gov/monitor-
ing_council/environmental_
flows_workgroup/index.html
(accessed Nov. 14, 2018).
[SWRCB] State Water Resources
Control Board. 2017. Cannabis
Cultivation Policy: Principles
and Guidelines for Cannabis
Cultivation. www.waterboards.
ca.gov/board_decisions/ad-
opted_orders/resolutions/2017/
final_cannabis_policy_with_
att_a.pdf
Tessmann SA. 1979. Environ-
mental Use Sector: Reconnais-
sance Elements of the Western
Dakotas Region of South Dakota
Study. Environmental Assess-
ment, Technical Appendix E.
Brookings, SD: Water Resources
Institute, South Dakota State
Univ.
[TNC] The Nature Conservancy.
2018a. Gage Gap: An analysis
of California’s stream gage
network. https://gagegap.co-
defornature.org (accessed Mar.
9, 2018).
TNC. 2018b. California Stream
Flow Alteration Mean Monthly
Flows. public.tableau.com/
views/California_Stream_Flow_
Alteration/mean
Yarnell SM, Petts GE, Schmidt
JC, et al. 2015. Functional flows
in modified riverscapes: Hydro-
graphs, habitats, and opportuni-
ties. BioScience 65:963–72.
Zimmerman JKH, Carlisle DM,
May JT, et al. 2018. Patterns and
magnitude of flow alteration in
California, USA. Freshwater Biol
63:859–73.

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  39
 RESEARCH ARTICLE

UC-industry-agency partnerships influence

and help implement dairy water quality policy
More than 94% of dairy producers were in compliance with new regulations to protect water
quality after a carefully staged, collaborative plan to support the transition to new practices.
by Deanne M. Meyer, Betsy M. Karle, Jennifer M. Heguy, David J. Lewis, Jeffery W. Stackhouse and D. Denise Mullinax

Abstract
For 50 years, UC Agriculture and Natural Resources (UC ANR) has
contributed to dairy water quality policy in California and helped,
with partner organizations, to implement it in the dairy industry.
When conditional waivers for waste discharge requirements expired
in 2003, UC ANR shared research and best professional practices as
regional water quality control boards developed new orders. UC ANR
academics then worked with water quality control boards' staff and dairy
industry representatives to develop feasible, staged implementation
plans. Collaboratively, more than 50 hours of workshop curriculum
were developed and disseminated, helping dairy producers to accept
scientifically sound management practices that are more protective of
groundwater. Research by UC ANR to better understand system dynamics,
nitrogen management and practices to minimize the impact of manure
application on groundwater quality continues, as does a program in
environmental stewardship.
P
assage of the Porter-Cologne Act, California’s
water quality regulation, in 1969 and the addi-
tion of point source regulations to the federal
Clean Water Act in 1972 created a path to reduce the
impacts of livestock operations on water quality. Water
is an important resource for Californians. In the dairy
industry, water is used directly for animal consump-
tion, milk harvesting hygiene and sanitation, milk
cooling, animal cooling and also for on-site forage
production. Two important ways in which dairies con-
serve water are the use of manure-based fertilizers for
on-site forage production, and the use of feeds that are
byproducts of human food production (almond hulls,
distillers grains, cottonseed, etc.). The human edible
outputs from the industry are milk and meat. The in-
dustry also produces solid manure and process waste-
water (very dilute manure), which require management
to minimize the potential impact to surface water and
groundwater sources.

Online: https://doi.org/10.3733/ca.2018a0042

Manure management
practices based on
UC ANR research and
delivered through
educational workshops
have helped hundreds of
California dairy farmers
comply with regulations
designed to protect
water quality.
Steve Quirt

40 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

 In the 1970s, the State Water Resources Control
Board (SWRCB) worked to incorporate the 1972 Clean
Water Act requirements for concentrated animal
feeding operations into the Porter-Cologne Act. The
SWRCB requested information from UC Agriculture
and Natural Resources (UC ANR) on manure gen-
eration on dairies and best practices for manure
management. Since that time, UC ANR has worked
collaboratively with the SWRCB, regional water qual-
ity control boards, industry organizations and dairy
owners, providing research and educational pro-
grams to generate science-based policy and guide its
implementation.
Contributing science to regulatory
framework
UC ANR’s earliest work with the SWRCB, on identify-
ing better practices for manure management, was used
during the decade leading up to development of state-
wide regulations adopted in 1984 (previously Chapter
15: §2560-2565, now located in Chapter 7, subchapter
2, Article 1 §22560-22565) (California Code of Regu-
lations). Technical information was provided on soil
qualities important for dairy pond structure (§ 22562)
and the importance of having manure storage struc-
tures contain at least 10% clay and not more than 10%
gravel or other impermeable material. Also, technical
information was provided on manure nutrient use in
crop production systems (§ 22563): “The application of
manure to crop lands shall be at rates reasonable for the
crop, soil, climate, special local situations, management
system, and type of manure.”
In response to the statewide regulations ad-
opted in 1984, regional water quality control boards
were tasked with developing Conditional Waiver of
Waste Discharge Requirements (CWWDR) or Waste
Discharge Requirements (WDR). WDR were developed
with or without the federal Clean Water Act National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits, de-
pending on local needs. Beginning in the late 1970s,
UC ANR advisors convened local groups of dairy own-
ers and operators to discuss the implications of the new
regulations, identify alternative manure management
practices and engage in local monitoring to benchmark
and document progress.
The state’s regulatory process for issuing water qual-
ity permits changed in 2003 with the passage of Senate
Bill 293, which mandated a sunset to the existing
CWWDR. In practice, this required that each regional
water quality control board reissue its conditional
waivers on a 5-year cycle or issue WDR. Both processes
required intensive public input.
As change agents, UC ANR (UC Cooperative
Extension) advisors and specialists were actively
engaged with stakeholders to provide science-based
information to staff at regional water quality control
boards as they developed and adopted WDR for dairies.
Technical questions arose prior to and during the
policy development process. Research findings and
best professional understandings provided by UC ANR
academics informed policymakers during the 2-year
process of drafting the Central Valley (RB5) Dairy
General Order (CVRWQCB 2007; CVRWQCB 2013).
UC ANR also provided scientific input during develop-
ment of dairy regulatory processes by the North Coast
(RB1) (NCRWQCB 2012) and San Francisco Bay (RB2)
(SFBRWQCB 2015) regional water quality control
boards.
Building partnerships UC ANR
has worked
The California Dairy Quality Assurance Program
(CDQAP) Environmental Stewardship module was collaboratively
founded in 1997, a partnership between dairy industry
groups; federal, state and regional government agen-
with the SWRCB,
cies; dairy science researchers and UC ANR. Its first regional water
project was to collaboratively establish a mechanism
to certify dairies in environmental stewardship. It was
quality control
proactive in addressing environmental concerns, set- boards, industry
ting up the voluntary certification project before the
adoption of water quality regulations that targeted
organizations
nitrogen management (CVRWQCB 2007; CVRWQCB and dairy
2013; NCRWQCB 2012; SFBRWQCB 2015). In ad-
dition to joint work between UC ANR and CDQAP,
owners,
active participation from U.S. Department of Agricul- providing
ture Natural Resources Conservation Service (USDA
NRCS), resource conservation districts and regional
research and
boards' staff members remains important to the success educational
of the programs.
The project received a grant in 1999 from the U.S.
programs
Environmental Protection Agency in support of its goal to generate
to encourage dairy operators to adopt more environ-
mentally sustainable management practices to manage
science-
manure and protect water quality. Practices needing based policy
attention included managing production areas prior to
winter rains to maximize collection of rain runoff from
and guide its
solid manure containing areas, conditioning corrals to implementation.
minimize erosion during rain events, evaluating liquid
manure storage capacity, using water more efficiently
and carefully timing application of nutrients to soil
during growth of winter and summer crops to more
closely match crop nitrogen needs. Enhanced man-
agement helps to prevent erosion and retain nitrogen
nearer to crop root zone for use.
The requirements for becoming certified in envi-
ronmental stewardship include attending a 6-hour UC
ANR dairy environmental stewardship course (dairy
water quality and dairy manure management). Also,
the dairy operator or owner needs to document compli-
ance with local, state and federal regulations pertaining
to environmental stewardship and successfully com-
plete an on-farm evaluation by an independent third
party with no previous ties to the facility or affiliation
with facility management. UC ANR academics were
deeply involved in developing the on-farm evaluation
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  41

To help dairy operators
estimate manure storage
pond capacity needs,
workshop leaders set up
office hours where they
provided one-on-one
assistance with site-specific
calculations.
David Lewis
42 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
tool to delineate compliance with water quality regula-
tions and to evaluate probability of compliance based
on infrastructure available for manure management
and management capabilities. The evaluation checklist
was finalized through a series of ten 3- to 5-hour meet-
ings by staff from the SWRCB, regional water quality
control boards, US EPA, California Department of
Food and Agriculture, dairy industry representatives
and UC ANR.
Central Valley Dairy GWDR
In 2000, the Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Board (CVRWQCB) asked UC ANR to ad-
dress technical questions posed by its staff on manure
nitrogen distribution, atmospheric nitrogen losses,
nitrogen application rates, phosphorus and potassium
concentrations in manure, salts in dairy manure and
the effects of applying manure to land (Chang et al.
2006). A committee of UC ANR experts on these sub-
jects was convened. The findings of the committee’s
report, specifically that nitrogen application rates of 1.4
to 1.65 times the nitrogen removal rates in harvested
crops are protective of groundwater quality, served as
the foundation of the GWDR (for existing milk cow
dairies [CVRWQCB 2007, 2013]) nitrogen application
restriction developed in 2007.
Many of the experts on the committee also
worked on the USDA NRCS Comprehensive Nutrient
Management Plan guidance development process.
This process brought together technical experts from
UC ANR, dairy industry stakeholders and NRCS
staff to develop guidance for many aspects of nutrient
management involved with dairy operations. Together,
the group worked with stakeholders and CVRWQCB
staff to identify logical, methodical ways that producers
could effectively implement changes to their operations
to be more protective of groundwater quality and meet
compliance needs.
In 2003, after the mandatory sunset of conditional
waivers, the CVRWQCB began to develop dairy-spe-
cific GWDR for existing milk cow dairies through a se-
ries of stakeholder meetings. Included were concerned
citizen groups, USDA NRCS state experts, UC ANR
academics, dairy industry representatives and county
regulatory agency staff.
The primary focus of the dairy GWDR was bet-
ter management of all forms of nitrogen to minimize
nitrate leaching through soil. Existing knowledge (in
industry, UC ANR and USDA NRCS), findings from
then-current research (from UC ANR) and identifica-
tion of standard practices (from USDA NRCS, industry,
UC ANR) were integrated to establish a staged imple-
mentation process for the dairy GWDR (CVRWQCB
2007).
The trust developed during the initial years of
the environmental stewardship program was invalu-
able. Stakeholders who knew one another provided
scientific input during numerous dairy stakeholder
working group meetings with dairy program staff at
CVRWQCB. UC ANR academics provided written
and oral public comments and contributed research
publications and findings during working group meet-
ings. Once the dairy-specific GWDR program was
finalized, the next hurdle was delivering it to the dairy
industry in a way that would result in positive manage-
ment change by dairy owners and operators. They were
required to change from doing what they had been do-
ing for decades to, for example, maintaining detailed
water quality records and submitting annual reports.
UC ANR collaborated with its partners in CDQAP to
develop workshops for dairy operators and their con-
sultants. UC ANR led the workshop curriculum devel-
opment and dissemination processes.
UC ANR contributed research on the infiltration of
nitrate-nitrogen into groundwater below fields farmed
for forage crops to be fed to dairy cows (Harter et al.
2002; Harter, Davis et al. 2001; Harter, Mathews et al.
2001; Mathews et al. 2001). It was key to dairy produc-
ers making nitrogen management a priority.
The final 6-stage implementation plan for comply-
ing with the dairy-specific GWDR was a methodical
approach to managing nitrogen applications. It con-
sisted of (1) identifying current facility infrastructure
and nitrogen application and water management
capabilities; (2) evaluating sufficiency of existing infra-
structure for more detailed needs of a future system;
(3) determining a feasible implementation plan to get
from current structures to future needs in a limited
time frame (as defined in the GWDR); (4) completing
retrofits as needed; (5) evaluating effectiveness and (6)
making additional improvements.
 In fall 2005, UC ANR and CDQAP delivered a
workshop in the Central Valley to dairy operators. The
primary focus of this workshop was introducing pend-
ing changes in the regulatory process and providing
an opportunity for each dairy facility owner to iden-
tify the facility is in operation and exists (a California
Environmental Quality Act process).
In 2006, UC ANR published California Dairies:
Protecting Water Quality, which summarized practical
approaches and technologies to protect water quality
and aid dairy producers in positioning their facilities
to comply with the impending regulations (Ristow et
al. 2006). For dairies with irrigated cropland, recom-
mended management practices included assessing
farm nitrogen balance and improving manure record-
keeping systems, upgrading liquid manure distribu-
tion systems to quantify application rates, exporting
manure nitrogen off-site, increasing storage capacity
by reducing the volume of water generated in the milk-
ing parlor, applying nitrogen (manure and nonmanure
sources) at agronomic rates and modifying irrigation
systems to improve water use efficiency and distribu-
tion uniformity.
UC ANR advisors and specialists worked with their
CDQAP partners to create educational programming
for Central Valley dairy operators under the jurisdic-
tion of the regional board. Starting in 2007, the 3-hour
workshops and outreach meetings held throughout the
Central Valley, altogether more than 33 hours of cur-
riculum, presented technical and agricultural science
knowledge to help dairy operators and consultants
start to implement the GWDR and information on
its detailed regulations. When the dairy GWDR was
adopted, the CDQAP environmental stewardship
program was 7 years strong. Though farmers knew
that change was coming, they were unprepared for the
GWDR’s 125 pages of regulatory text, and few under-
stood the nuances of compliance.
The workshops were held at 6-month intervals
beginning in fall 2007, after the GWDR was adopted,
for the first 2 years and then annually. Grants from
the California Dairy Research Foundation offset costs
for workshop materials. Attendees were provided with
UC publications on management practices to protect
surface water quality (Long et al. 2005; Meyer and
Robinson 2007) and to use flowmeters (Hansen and
Schwankl 1998; Schwankl et al. 2003) to quantify water
and nutrient use for dairy forage crops. An online se-
ries of nine presentations on irrigation water manage-
ment specific to dairy and liquid manure was created
for dairy operators (Schwankl 2008). A compliance as-
sistance binder was created (CDQAP-RB5 2007).
In the compliance assistance materials created for
dairy operators and consultants were board-approved
sampling protocols required by the GWDR, which also
specified proper laboratory methods for analysis of the
samples. The protocols were developed by UC, based
on UC science and best professional understandings
(Miller et al. 2018; Miller et al. 2019). The protocols
help dairy producers obtain representative soil, solid
and liquid manure, plant tissue and irrigation water
samples for precisely managing nutrient applications
and nutrient removals from land where manure was
applied (Campbell Matthews and Frate 2008; Davy et
al. 2009; Frate and Campbell Matthews 2008; Harter
and Meyer 2007; Meyer and Mullinax 2008; Meyer
2008; Meyer et al. 2008; Meyer and Price 2011; Mueller
and Putnam 2009; Pettygrove and Campbell Matthews
2008). A laboratory methods manual following US EPA
methods was developed and went through stringent
review by laboratory managers from other land grant
universities familiar with these materials and the need
for quality assurance (Holstege et al. 2010).
Fewer workshops were needed as dairy operators
became more familiar with the GWDR, but the need
continued for technical assistance on the detailed field-
by-field nutrient management plans required. These
were to be prepared under the consultation of a certi-
fied crop advisor or technical services provider, and at
the time, educational opportunities for these profes-
sionals did not address managing manure as a nutrient,
so UC ANR again stepped up to fill the gap. UCCE
specialists and advisors developed presentations on
sample collection and handling, targeting nitrogen ap-
plication to crop needs based on crop stage of produc-
tion, and irrigation water management to reduce deep
percolation of nitrate, as well as programs in backflow
prevention related to potential cross contaminations on
dairy operations.
The GWDR had a component related to mandatory
groundwater monitoring. The Central Valley Dairy
Representative Monitoring Program was developed
to meet the groundwater monitoring requirements.
Currently, many UC ANR specialists and advisors
work with the Central Valley Dairy Representative
Monitoring Program to provide technical advice on
both the mandated groundwater monitoring program
and the development of next-generation manure man-
agement practices more protective of groundwater.
Ongoing development and dissemination of continuing
education by CDQAP partners provides timely “news
you can use” to dairy operators on manure manage-
ment and water quality topics.
North Coast, Bay Area dairy orders
As the North Coast and San Francisco Bay Area re-
gional boards approached the time to reissue condi-
tional waivers for dairies, UC ANR and their partners
in the CDQAP environmental stewardship program
were engaged in the process, prior to the dairy orders
being adopted in January 2012 and July 2015, respec-
tively (NCRWQCB 2012; SFBRWQCB 2015). Once
they were finalized, CDQAP organizations worked
collaboratively to deliver workshops in Petaluma, Point
Reyes, Ferndale and Rohnert Park to help dairy opera-
tors understand and meet compliance needs. These
workshops, and also office hours, were held at least
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  43
 Dan Brekke/Flickr

Regulation of un-ionized
ammonia, which is
toxic to fish and other
aquatic life, is particularly
important in watersheds
like Stemple Creek that
have a documented
history of supporting
(left) steelhead trout
(Oncorhynchus mykiss) and
(right) California freshwater
shrimp (Syncaris pacifica).
100.0000
10.0000
Un-ionized NH3 (mg/L)
In Stemple Creek/Estero de San Antonio watershed, there has been a
more than 95% reduction in un-ionized ammonia concentrations.
twice annually during the first 2 years. Annual meet-
ings are now held prior to the submission deadline of
annual reports.
Unique needs in the North Coast and San Francisco
Bay regional water quality control board jurisdictions
included concerns about waterborne pathogens and
toxic un-ionized ammonia from dairy enterprises
entering aquatic habitats. In the case of pathogens, in-
dicator bacteria are used as water quality constituents
to protect water quality for shellfish harvesting and
recreation. Un-ionized ammonia can be acutely toxic to
cold water fishery species, including coho and steelhead
CDFGW data
CEAP data
Tony Iwane/Flickr
trout, which are listed as endangered and threatened,
respectively, on the North Coast.
Drawing upon work of UC ANR academics, systems
understanding of bacteria fate and transport on area
dairy farms was provided (Lewis et al. 2005) with spe-
cific management practice recommendations to reduce
pathogen delivery from pastures that receive manure
(Lewis et al. 2010) and high-use areas (Lewis et al.
2009). Additionally, recommendations for residual dry
matter levels (Bartolome et al. 2002) served as guide-
lines for managing more extensively grazed areas of
dairy farms.
The Animal Resource Management Committee,
founded more than 30 years ago and responsible for
monitoring and improving water quality in streams
adjacent to dairy and animal operations in Sonoma and
Marin counties, provided key organizational capacity.
Staff from regulatory agencies and resource manage-
ment agencies, dairy producers and technical service
providers continue to meet monthly during the winter

1.0000
storm season. They share and discuss water quality data
collected by surface water group monitoring programs
0.1000 and any regulatory agencies and work with the agricul-
tural network to address identified problems through
water quality planning and conservation practice
0.0100 implementation.
In Stemple Creek/Estero de San Antonio watershed,
one of the watersheds covered by the committee, there
0.0010
has been a more than 95% reduction in un-ionized am-
monia concentrations (fig. 1). Un-ionized ammonia is
0.0001
regulated on a concentration basis to prevent acute and
1991 1993 1996 1998 2001 2004 2007 chronic toxicity in surface water. Regulation is particu-
Date larly important in watersheds like Stemple Creek that
have a documented history of supporting steelhead
FIG. 1. Un-ionized ammonia concentrations in Stemple Creek watershed. Values are trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and California freshwater
from unpublished data from the California Department of Fish Game (now California
shrimp (Syncaris pacifica).
Department of Fish and Wildlife) sampling and analysis program from 1991 through
2001 and the Conservation Effects Assessment Program (CEAP) Study in 2005 and 2006 Manure is a source of un-ionized ammonia and
(Bingner et al. 2008). In 2000, a change in the analytical detection limit resulted in the its direct delivery to streams and rivers. Using col-
reporting of lower limit values from that point on. lected data to inform management, practices were

44 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1

implemented on watershed dairies that resulted in
un-ionized ammonia concentrations decreasing from
maximum values of nearly 10 milligrams per liter to
less than 1 milligram per liter. The decrease was sus-
tained through years of high precipitation, such as
1998, with 72.81 inches of rainfall, and through low
rainfall years, like 2001, with just 23.54 inches (fig. 2).
Once the dairy orders were adopted, CDQAP
again used a collaborative process for record keeping
and reporting template development, review and ap-
proval. Compliance assistance binders were created
and populated throughout a series of educational
workshops (CDQAP-RB1 2012; CDQAP-RB2 2015);
content included the work of UC ANR academics in
pasture-based systems to address the specialized needs
of pasture-based systems to be protective of water
quality (Bartolome et al. 2002; Lewis et al. 2005). UC
ANR worked to develop and deploy the workshops
with dairy industry stakeholders (trade association and
creamery representatives) and staff from other organi-
zations: the two regional water boards, USDA NRCS
and local resource conservation districts. Grants from
the California Dairy Research Foundation and USDA
Risk Management Agency offset costs for workshop
materials and delivery.
Impacts, lessons learned
The record-keeping templates for dairy operators were
an important outcome of these efforts. They helped op-
erators to meet the regulatory requirements for docu-
mentation of facility evaluations before and after major
storm events as well as other facility management
Stemple Creek watershed. To help
North Coast dairy operators reduce
pathogen delivery to streams and
rivers from pastures that receive
manure, UC ANR research on bacteria
transport was used to guide the
development of specific management
practice recommendations.
needs. They gave regulatory agency staff confidence
that producers were maintaining records about re-
quired practices. Workshops were also a key compo-
nent of the education and outreach strategy, providing
up-to-date technical information and answering de-
tailed site-specific questions. Some of the more unique
questions were forwarded to the appropriate regional
boards' staff and served as the basis for question and
80
70
60
Precipitation (inches)
50
40
30
20
10
0
1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006
Water year (Oct 1–Sept 30)
FIG. 2. Cumulative annual precipitation from 1991 through 2006 from Point Reyes
Station, a coastal location approximately 10 miles south of Stemple Creek watershed,
representative of the Point Reyes–Bodega Bay coastal region. Precipitation data are not
from the studied Stemple Creek watershed because a continuous precipitation record is
unavailable for that watershed.
David Lewis
http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  45

View across Tomales
Bay to the east shore,
where grass-covered
hills provide pasture for
area dairies. The bay and
its watershed support
shellfish production and
harvesting and are habitat
for a diversity of wildlife.
46 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE • VOLUME 73, NUMBER 1
answer (Q&A) documents on the board website. Sur-
veys conducted at the end of workshops showed that
dairy operators appreciated the opportunity to learn
about the regulatory process.
Of greatest importance to the regional board staff
was the compliance rate. More than 94% of Central
Valley operators and 95% of North Coast and San
Francisco Bay producers submitted required docu-
ments at each of the submission deadlines. This was far
more than anticipated. Central Valley GWDR covered
more than 1,400 dairy operations, and thereby was
the largest number of permittees ever adopted by RB5
under one GWDR. The North Coast CWWDR applied
to 126 facilities and the San Francisco Bay CWWDR
applied to fewer than 50 facilities (including sheep and
goat dairies). This high compliance rate allowed board
staff to conduct compliance inspections instead of
tracking down paperwork and educating dairy opera-
tors one-on-one about compliance needs.
In the Central Valley, facilities certified in the
CDQAP environmental stewardship program are in-
spected less frequently (every 5 years rather than every
3 years) by board staff because they are also evaluated
by a CDQAP contractor. Facilities certified under a
state- or county-approved quality assurance program
receive a 50% WDR fee reduction (SWRCB 2016), a sav-
ings of up to $6,624 per dairy annually.
Early in the process the workshops for consultants
were improved by including a presentation on the
emotional aspects of change, because consultants were
reporting that some of their clients were exhibiting var-
ious stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depres-
sion). Feedback was unanimous that the presentation
provided consultants with insight to better understand
why dairy producers were reacting as they were to the
regulatory changes.
Some workshops experienced bumps and provided
the workshop leaders opportunities to regroup. After
attempting a classroom delivery to estimate manure
storage pond capacity needs, they quickly identified
David Lewis
that an alternative approach was needed. Office hours
were set up at local sites near dairy operators so pro-
ducers could work through the needed, site-specific
calculations with one-on-one assistance.
Delivery of educational workshops and scientific
information to dairy farmers and their consultants was
important for a greater understanding of regulatory
requirements. UC ANR has worked with regulatory
boards and hundreds of dairy farmers and dozens of
consultants while navigating a multitude of production
systems (from 20 to 10,000 cows, organic and conven-
tional, pasture-based and confinement facilities) and
regulatory environments (regional board requirements,
county building requirements, county animal permit-
ting requirements and air management districts regula-
tions). As additional regulations take shape, UC ANR
will continue to deliver scientific information and work
with its partners to influence the state’s water quality
policy.
Improved dairy manure management practices
to maintain or improve surface water or groundwa-
ter quality are achieved through incremental steps.
UC ANR involvement at the local and state level has
provided invaluable research into subjects critical to
specific water quality needs. Analysis of management
practices to improve nitrogen management, mini-
mize nonpoint source impacts to surface waters, and
evaluate manure treatment technologies takes time
and much repetition to represent different geographic
areas. On-farm and regional research is ongoing to
better inform policymakers developing water quality
policy. Change in management practices and ultimate
improvements to surface water and groundwater qual-
ity comes when individual dairy operators modify
practices. Through collaborative efforts, UCANR and
CDQAP have been leaders in the development and de-
livery of award-winning outreach programs to improve
environmental management and sustainability at dair-
ies with owner/operator participation. c
D.M. Meyer is UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE) Livestock Waste
Management Specialist, Department of Animal Science, UC
Davis; B.M. Karle is UCCE Dairy Advisor, Glenn, Tehama and Butte
counties; J.M. Heguy is UCCE Dairy Advisor, San Joaquin, Stanislaus
and Merced counties; D.J. Lewis is UCCE Watershed Management
Advisor, Marin and Napa counties; J.W. Stackhouse is UCCE
Livestock and Natural Resource Advisor, Humboldt and Del Norte
counties; and D.D. Mullinax is Assistant Manager, CDQAP, and
Interim Manager, California Dairy Research Foundation.
The success of this program would not have been possible
without the support of the following CDQAP partner agencies:
California Dairy Research Foundation, Western United Dairymen,
Milk Producers’ Council, California Farm Bureau, California Dairy
Campaign, Sustainable Conservation, the three regional water
quality control boards and San Joaquin Air Pollution Control
District. Specifically, industry contributors Paul Martin, Paul Sousa
and Melissa Lema of Western United Dairymen; Kevin Abernathy
of Milk Producers’ Council; and Frances Tjarnstrom of Humboldt
County Resource Conservation District dedicated innumerable
hours of outreach and guidance throughout the process.
UC ANR collaborators Shannon Mueller, Marsha Campbell-
Matthews, G. Stuart Pettygrove, Thomas Harter, Carol Frate, Larry
Schwankl, Allan Fulton, Doug Munier, Josh Davy, Bill Krueger, Carol
Collar, Gerald Higginbotham and Alejandro Castillo were integral in
providing technical expertise during the educational process.

References
Bartolome JW, Frost WE, Mc-
Dougald NK, Connor M. 2002.
California Guidelines for Resid-
ual Dry Matter (RDM) Manage-
ment on Coastal and Foothill
Annual Rangelands. UC ANR
Pub 8092. Oakland, CA. p 1–7.
Bingner R, Langendoen E, Lewis
D, et al. 2007. Evaluation of con-
servation practices in the NRCS
CEAP Special Emphasis Stemple
Creek Watershed. In: Proc Ann
Soil and Water Conserv Soc, Jul.
21, 2007. Tampa, FL.
California Code of Regulations.
Title 27, Division 2, Subdivision
1, Chapter 7, Subchapter 2. Ar-
ticle 1. SWRCB-Confined Animal
Facilities. https://govt.westlaw.
com/calregs/Browse/Home/
California/CaliforniaCodeofRegu
lations?guid=I21AB9A20D4501
1DEA95CA4428EC25FA0&origin
ationContext=documenttoc&tr
ansitionType=Default&contextD
ata=(sc.Default)
California State Legislature.
2003. SB 923, Chapter 801: An
Act to Amend Section 13269
of the Water Code, Relating to
Water. www.leginfo.ca.gov/
pub/03-04/statute/ch_0801-
0850/ch_801_st_2003_sb_923
Campbell Matthews M, Frate C.
2008. Forage Crops — Corn and
Winter Forage Sampling Proto-
col. CDQAP- WDR General Order
Reference Binder.
CDQAP-RB1. 2012. Califor-
nia Dairy Quality Assurance
Program North Coast RB1
Water Quality Reference
Binder. http://cdrf.org/home/
checkoff-investments/cdqap/
about-the-environmental-stew-
ardship-program/north-coast-
reference-binder/
CDQAP-RB2. 2015. Califor-
nia Dairy Quality Assurance
Program San Francisco Bay
RB2 Water Quality Reference
Binder. http://cdrf.org/home/
checkoff-investments/cdqap/
about-the-environmental-
stewardship-program/north-
coast-rb2-reference-binder/
CDQAP-RB5. 2007. Califor-
nia Dairy Quality Assurance
Program Central Valley RB5
Water Quality Reference
Binder. http://cdrf.org/home/
checkoff-investments/cdqap/
about-the-environmental-
stewardship-program/
wdr-general-order-reference-
binder-materials/
Chang A, Harter T, Letey J, et al.
2006. Groundwater Quality Pro-
tection: Managing Dairy Manure
in the Central Valley of California.
UC ANR Pub 9004. Oakland,
CA. 178 p.
[CVRWQCB] Central Valley
Regional Water Quality Control
Board. 2007. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region Order
R5-2007-0035: Waste Discharge
Requirements General Order
for Existing Milk Cow Dairies.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/cen-
tralvalley/board_decisions/ad-
opted_orders/general_orders/
r5-2007-0035.pdf
CVRWQCB. 2013. California
Regional Water Quality Control
Board Central Valley Region
Order R5-2013-0122: Reissued
Waste Discharge Requirements
General Order for Existing Milk
Cow Dairies. www.waterboards.
ca.gov/centralvalley/board_de-
cisions/adopted_orders/gen-
eral_orders/r5-2013-0122.pdf
Davy J, Doran M, Karle B, Meyer
D. 2009. Sampling Protocol for
Irrigated Pastures. CDQAP-WDR
General Order Reference Binder.
Frate C, Campbell Matthews M.
2008. Irrigation (Fresh) Water
Sampling Protocol. CDQAP-
WDR General Order Reference
Binder.
Hansen B, Schwankl L. 1998.
Water turbulence disrupts accu-
racy of some flow meters. Calif
Agr 52(1):25–30.
Harter T, Davis H, Mathews MC,
Meyer RD. 2001. Monitoring
shallow groundwater nitrogen
loading from dairy facilities with
irrigated forage crops. In: Proc
ASAE Ann Int Mtg, July 30–Aug.
1, 2001. Sacramento, CA. Paper
01-2103.
Harter T, Davis H, Mathews
MC, Meyer RD. 2002. Shallow
groundwater quality on dairy
farms with irrigated forage
crops. J Contam Hydrol 55(3-
4):287–315.
Harter T, Mathews MC, Meyer
RD. 2001. Effects of dairy ma-
nure nutrient management on
shallow groundwater nitrate: A
case study. In: Proc ASAE Ann
Int Mtg, July 30–Aug. 1, 2001.
Sacramento, CA. Paper 01-2192.
Harter T, Meyer D. 2007. Sam-
pling Supply Wells and Subsur-
face (Tile) Drainage Systems.
CDQAP-WDR General Order
Reference Binder. http://cdrf.
org/wp-content/uploads/2012
/06/5_1SamplingWells-​revised-
March-2011.pdf
Holstege D, Price P, Miller
RO, Meyer D. 2010. California
Analytical Methods Manual for
Dairy General Order Compli-
ance — Nutrient Management
Plan Constituents. UC Davis
Analytical Laboratory. https://
anlab.ucdavis.edu/media/pdf/
uc_analytical_methods.pdf
Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS,
et al. 2005. Linking on-farm
dairy management practices
to storm-flow fecal coliform
loading for California coastal
watersheds. Environ Monit As-
sess 107(1):407–25.
Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS,
et al. 2009. Reducing microbial
contamination in storm runoff
from high use areas on Cali-
fornia coastal dairies. Water Sci
Technol 60(7):1731–4.
Lewis DJ, Atwill ER, Lennox MS,
et al. 2010. Reducing micro-
bial contamination in storm
runoff from California coastal
dairy pastures. J Environ Qual
39:1782–9.
Long R, Gan J, Nett M. 2005.
Pesticide Choice: Best Manage-
ment Practice (BMP) for Protect-
ing Surface Water Quality in
Agriculture. UC ANR Pub 8161.
Oakland, CA. 7 p.
Mathews MC, Swenson E, Harter
T, Meyer D. 2001. Matching
dairy lagoon nutrient applica-
tion to crop nitrogen uptake
using a flow meter and control
valve. In: Proc ASAE Ann Int Mtg,
July 30–Aug. 1, 2001. Sacra-
mento, CA. Paper 01-2105.
Meyer D. 2008. Process Waste-
water (Liquid Manure) Sampling
Protocol. CDQAP-WDR General
Order Reference Binder.
Meyer D, Mullinax D. 2008. Solid
Manure Sampling Protocol.
CDQAP-WDR General Order
Reference Binder.
Meyer D, Price P. 2011. Supply
Well and Tile Drain Sample
Field Analysis for Ammonium
Nitrogen. CDQAP-WDR General
Order Reference Binder.
Meyer D, Price P, Karle B. 2008.
Solid Manure Moisture Content
Determination — Microwave
Method for Exported Solid
Manures. CDQAP-WDR General
Order Reference Binder.
Meyer D, Robinson P. 2007. Use
of Feed Inventory Records to
Reduce Nutrient Loading at
Dairy Operations: Producers
Options. UC ANR Pub 8277.
Oakland, CA. 6 p.
Miller CMF, Fadel JG, Heguy
JM, et al. 2018. Optimizing
accuracy of protocols for
measuring dry matter and
nutrient yield of forage crops.
Sci Total Environ 624:180–8.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito-
tenv.2017.11.203
Miller CMF, Heguy JM, Karle BM,
et al. 2019. Optimizing accuracy
of protocols to measure nutri-
ent content of solid manure.
Waste Manage. In press.
Mueller S, Putnam D 2009. Sam-
pling Alfalfa Hay. CDQAP-WDR
General Order Reference Binder.
[NCRWQCB] North Coast Re-
gional Water Quality Control
Board. 2012. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board
North Coast Region Order R1-
2012-0003: Conditional Waiver
of Waste Discharge Require-
ments for Existing Cow Dairies
in the North Coast Region.
www.waterboards.ca.gov/
northcoast/water_issues/
programs/dairies/pdf/120127/
waiver/120127_12_0003_
Waiver_Dairy.pdf
Pettygrove GS, Campbell Mat-
thews M. 2008. Soil Sampling
Protocol. CDQAP-WDR General
Order Reference Binder.
Ristow PL, Pettygrove GS, Meyer
DM, et al. 2006. California Dairies
— Protecting the Environment.
Sustainable Agriculture Re-
search & Education Program. UC
ANR Pub 21630. Oakland, CA.
Schwankl LJ. 2008. Dairy Irriga-
tion Water Management Series,
UC ANR Narrated PowerPoint
Presentations. http://ucanr.edu/
sites/irrmgm/narrated_power-
point_presentations/ (accessed
Jul. 20, 2017).
Schwankl L, Eagle A, Frate C,
Nydam B. 2003. Flow meters
tested on dairy lagoon water.
Calif Agr 57(3):93–6.
[SFBRWQCB] San Francisco Bay
Region Water Quality Control
Board. 2015. California Regional
Water Quality Control Board San
Francisco Bay Region Resolu-
tion No. 2-2015-0031: Renewal
of Conditional Waiver of Waste
Discharge Requirements for
Existing Dairies within the San
Francisco Bay Region. www.
waterboards.ca.gov/sanfrancis-
cobay/water_issues/programs/
TMDLs/agriculture/CAF/Resolu-
tion%20R2-2015-0031.pdf
SWRCB. 2016. California Code of
Regulations 2016–17 Waste Dis-
charge Fees. www.waterboards.
ca.gov/resources/fees/docs/
fy1617_fee_schedule.pdf

http://calag.ucanr.edu • JANUARY–MARCH 2019  47
California Agriculture
2801 Second Street
Room 181A
Davis, CA 95618-7779
calag@ucanr.edu
Phone: (530) 750-1223
Fax: (530) 756-1079

Visit us online:
calag.ucanr.edu
@Cal_Ag
www.facebook.com/CaliforniaAgriculture

The California Agricultural

Resources Archive is now live!
T he growing collection, a partnership between UC Agriculture
and Natural Resources and UC Merced, is home to the archives
of UC Cooperative Extension (UCCE). It preserves, organizes and
provides free digital access to
historical photographs, maps,
newsletters, guides and other
documents of enduring value
related to the development
of agriculture in California.
The project recently received
a major grant from the
National Archives. More
than 2,200 photographs
and other documents
are already available, at
http://cara.ucmerced.edu/.

Survey: Groundwater pumping energy use in California

L awrence Berkeley National Laboratory scientists want to hear directly from growers and water suppliers
about their experiences with the energy needed to pump groundwater. The grower survey can be accessed
at https://gwenergy.lbl.gov/growers, and the water supplier survey at https://gwenergy.lbl.gov/id.